Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010161382025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1725/2025 DEEPJYOTI BAISHYA SON OF LATE BAHADUR BAISHYA R/O VILL- SARUPETA, MILANPUR P.O. SARUPETA P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, PIN-781318, DIST. BAJALI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D J HALOI, MR. S A HUSSAIN,MS. ADITEE HALOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 02.09.2025 Heard Mr. D. J. Haloi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. By this application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, viz., Deepjyoti Baishya has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Patacharkuchi Police Station Case No.141/2025 registered under Sections 69/76/351(2)/115(2)/316(2) of the BNS, 2023. The F.I.R. dated 11.07.2024 lodged by the informant victim reveals that the victim who was a widow got introduced with the petitioner from the social media and that the petitioner promised to marry her and on the said promise the petitioner developed physical relationship with her and that the petitioner had also taken the victim to the court and applied for marriage registration but thereafter the petitioner threatened her son and took money from her and that he blocked her in social media and was searching to marry some other girl. Mr. D. J. Haloi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not know that the victim was a widow and that he was in fact cheated by the victim and he had also applied for marriage registration with the victim but later on he came to know that the victim was married with a son and he submits that the story projected in the F.I.R. is concocted. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. submits that there are allegations that the petitioner had threatened the son and that the Case Diary, more specifically the statement of the victim, reveals that the petitioner had impregnated her and the child was aborted and that he has refused to marry her and as such, the learned Addl. P.P. has prayed that no bail may be granted to the petitioner. It is noticed that the petitioner was enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail and in compliance of the same the petitioner had appeared before the I.O. and got Page No.# 3/3 his statement recorded. On submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records it is seen that the petitioner had the intention to marry the victim and he had registered the marriage with the victim as could be seen from the Online version of the same and also because of the fact that the petitioner had appeared before the I.O., this Court deems it fit that the interim order dated 25.07.2025 may be made absolute with the further direction that the petitioner may comply with the conditions already incorporated in the interim order dated 25.07.2025. The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant