Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010184312025 2025:GAU-AS:11455 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2681/2025 BISWAJIT KALITA S/O MR. JITEN KALITA ADD- UZAN TOKORADIA P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM WORKING ADD- NEW SURGICAL MART, C.K. ROAD, PANBAZAR, C/O RANJIT SHARMA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. F Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Page No.# 2/4 of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with All Women P.S Case No. 69/2025 registered under Section 69 of B.N.S, 2023. 3. The F.I.R dated 09.08.2025 lodged by the victim herself reveals that she was in a relationship with the petitioner from the year 2020 and that they were in a physical relationship since then. However, it is stated by the victim that the petitioner had promised to marry her and that their marriage was also discussed. But the accused person, later on, refused to marry her and when she went to meet him again on 03.08.2025, the petitioner did not meet her. 4. Ms. F Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner not to marry the victim. Only that when it was found out later that the victim had maintained parallel relationship with another person, the petitioner had refused to marry her. As such, she submits that no offence under Section 69 of B.N.S, 2023 is made out. 5. Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, however, submits by perusing the Case Diary and more specifically in the statement of the victim it was stated that the petitioner had promised to marry the victim and that they were in a sexual relationship, in view of the same, however, the petitioner refused to marry her later. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays that no bail may be granted to the petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and carefully gone through the Case Diary. It is reflected in the F.I.R that the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner and the victim had love relationship since 2020 and that they had visited various places and were in a sexual relationship. But, she stated that the petitioner had refused to marry her later and that in the month of August 2025, when they were discussing about their marriage, the petitioner gave the phone to his mother who refused to get the marriage solemnized. In her statement before the Ld. Magistrate, she also stated that since 2020 she had love relationship with the petitioner and had developed sexual relationship with her since then and the talk of marriage was also going on between the families of both the parties. However, she stated that later the petitioner refused to marry her. The intention which is required under Section 69 of B.N.S, 2023 is not revealed in the present case. 7. As such, this Court deems it fit to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with 1(one) local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld. C.J.M, Kamrup (M) under the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall not approach the victim or her family members at any point of time. (ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial and appear before the Ld. Trial Court as and when called for. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witness connected with the case. 8. In view of the above, petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant