Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19860 (GAU)

VARSHA MITTAL AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2361/2025 · 2025-09-23

Shamima Jahan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010219442025 2025:GAU-AS:13190 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2361/2025 VARSHA MITTAL AND ANR W/O RAJESH KUMAR MITTAL D/O LATE RAM BHAGAT GOYEL PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DOOM DOOMA MAIN ROAD, MITTAL CLOTH STORE, P.O. DOOMDOOMA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786151 PRESENT ADDRESS- FLAT NO. 5D, MERYLIN APARTMENT, AG OFFICE ROAD, BELTOLA, P.S. BASHISTHA, GUWAHATI-781028, ASSAM, CONTACT NO. 6002576083 (M) 2: PRINCE GOYEL S/O LATE RAM BHAGAT GOYEL R/O FLAT NO. 19 M.L. RESIDENCY 2ND FLOR MAA DURGA PATH GARBHANGA KALIASHNAGAR HATIGAON P.S. HATIGAON GUWAHATI-781028 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 24.09.2025 Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. By this application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioners, viz., 1) Varsha Miktta and 2) Prince Goyel have prayed for pre- arrest bail in connection with Paltanbazar Police Station Case No.278/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.4544/2025 registered under Sections 69/318(2)/336(2)/337/351(3)/61(2)(b)/85 of the BNS, 2023. The F.I.R. dated 19.08.2025 reveals that the petitioner No.2, who is the husband of the victim i.e. the informant had marital disputes amongst them and as a result of which many cases were lodged against the parties. The victim in the said F.I.R. alleged that her estranged husband i.e. the petitioner No.2 and her sister-in-law i.e. the petitioner No.1 along with others had tortured her after marriage and that on 12.01.2025 during the pendency of the matrimonial litigations her husband i.e. the petitioner No.2 lured her to one hotel, the room of which she booked and that inside the room the petitioner No.2 forcibly established physical relationship with her and that later on the petitioner No.2 had replaced his name in the said hotel register and that the petitioner No.2 along with other family members had tampered the evidence with malafide Page No.# 3/4 intention so that the divorce petition may be granted easily. Mr. Mr. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there were matrimonial issues between the petitioner No.2 and the informant resulting into institution of various cases filed by the informant wife wherein settlement have been reached between them and that only the divorce petition was pending between the parties. He submits that for some unusual gains the victim had lodged the present F.I.R. Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State, however, submits that the allegations in the F.I.R. are serious to the effect that she was lured to a hotel room and that she was sexually assaulted and that forgery was also committed in respect of the hotel register and as such the learned Addl. P.P. has prayed for calling of the Case Diary. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. It is noticed that there were matrimonial issues between the parties resulting into institution of various cases which were settled amongst them and that the contents of the F.I.R. also shows that the informant had herself went to the hotel room along with her husband i.e. petitioner No.2. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit that the abovenamed petitioners may be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one local surety each of the like amount to satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions :- Page No.# 4/4 (1) That the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. (2) That the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not influence the witnesses connected with the case. (3) That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the arresting authority without prior permission. The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant