Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010182032025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1979/2025 SAIF UDDIN SON OF LATE ATAUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILL- BAKULAGURI P.O. BARAPUJIA, P.S. KAMPUR DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782428. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B P SINHA, MS B.SINHA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed for granting the privilege of Page No.# 2/3 pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Saif Uddin, apprehending arrest in connection with Kampur P.S. Case No. 87/2025 registered u/s 89/91 of the BNS, 2023. 3. That the fact of the case as stated in the FIR is that the complainant got married with the petitioner on 28.12.2023 as per rites and rituals of the society, then after they live together as husband and wife. But after few days, the petitioner started torturing physically without any just reasons and kept the informant without food. In the meantime, the informant became pregnant for 4 (four) months and on 28.06.2025, the petitioner asked her to terminate her pregnancy but the informant refused to do so as a result, the petitioner inflicted physical torture, kicked at her abdomen, causing severe pain in her abdomen. She was driven out from her matrimonial house, she finding no other option, went to lodge a complaint, but police instead to register a case with her written ejahar, have written a complaint of their own. Thereafter, the informant went to consult a doctor at Jamunamukh, Hojai and as per advice of doctor, she has done Ultrasound Examination, and found that the child in her womb has already been dead 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and opposed the prayer of granting bail to the petitioner. 5. Perusal of case diary reveals sufficient incriminating material against the present petitioner. 6. Therefore, this Court finds it not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application stands rejected. 8. Return the case diary. Page No.# 3/3 9. This disposes of the anticipatory bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant