Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010164112025 2025:GAU-AS:12030 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1798/2025 NIDHI AGARWALA AND ANR W/O PANKAJ AGARWALA R/O T.B. ROAD, MURME LA, TANGLA UDALGURI, P.O. AND PS. TANGLA, DIST. UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN-784521. 2: PANKAJ AGARWALA S/O KAILASH AGARWALA RESIDENT OF T.B. ROAD MURME LA TANGLA UDALGURI PO AND PS TANGLA DISTRICT - UDALGURI ASSAM PIN - 78452 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D SARMA, MR G N SAHEWALLA,MS K BHATTACHARYYA,MS S AGARWAL,MR M SAHEWALLA,MR. J ISLAM,MS. S NAZNEEN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 04.09.2025 Heard Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Hatigaon Police Station Case No. 133/2025 registered under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR dated 18.07.2025 lodged by the victim reveals that she was in a relationship with accused No. 1 mentioned in the said FIR and in view of the same, they had entered into physical relationships on multiple occasions and that it was also alleged that they got married in Mandir and stayed like husband and wife in a hotel. However, it is further alleged that the accused No. 1 on being forced to introduce her to his family members and to say about the said marriage, disappeared in May, 2025. The only allegations against the petitioners are that they threatened the informant and her family and that they took accused No. 1 to Dibrugarh forcibly. 4. Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the facts narrated in the ejahar was concocted and that there was no relation between the informant and accused No. 1 and that accused No. 1 was also not divorced from his first wife, although the proceedings were on. He further submits that as far as the petitioners are concerned, there was no threatening on their part and as such, has prayed for bail. 5. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent Page No.# 3/3 however on perusal of the Case Diary submits that the complainant, i.e., the informant had stated before the Police Officer that the petitioners had threatened her but there are no other witnesses stating the same. 6. On the submissions made by the learned counsels at the bar and on perusal of the fact, it is found that the petitioners were enlarged on pre-arrest bail by Order dated 31.07.2025 and on compliance of the conditions mentioned therein, the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer and have got their statements recorded and the same is acceded to by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on perusal of the Case Diary. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court deems it fit that the interim Order dated 31.07.2025 may be made absolute with the further direction that the conditions mentioned in the said order should be complied with without any fail. 8. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant