Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010261932024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3228/2024 SRI PRANJAL PRASAD S/O LATE ANIRUDH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KRISHNAPUR GOHAIN KRISHNAPUR, PS AND PO PHILLOBARI, DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM 786160 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K BORO, MR S.MITRA,MR. S MITRA,MR. R. RAMEEZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 07.01.2025 Heard Mr. S.Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.R.Kaushik, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, Pranjal Prasad in respect of Page No.# 2/3 Phillobari PS Case No. 31/2024 under Section 376/493/313 of the IPC. A man has lodged in FIR before the police alleging that his sister was having a relationship with the present petitioner since the year 2019. On multiple case, they had physical relationship for which she became pregnant. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner was already a married but concealing the fact, on 14.09.2024, the petitioner had put vermillion on the forehead of the informant’s sister. The victim was ultimately taken to Dibrugarh where her pregnancy was terminated without her consent. The informant has alleged that since the petitioner was already married, he gave false promise to his sister and as such, his physical relationship with his sister amounts to commission of rape. In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, 2023, she stated that she was 21 years of age at the time of filing of the FIR. She has implicated the present petitioner. I have considered the submission of both the parties. The case involving a 21 years old girl having relationship with a man on a simple promise of marriage had physical relationship with the man. Now, it is a settled principle of law that a simple promise of marriage does not constitute misconception of fact as defined by law. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the opinion that above petitioner does not deserve to be detained in custody and therefore, his prayer for pre-arrest bail is hereby allowed. It is further directed that in the event of arrest of the present petitioner, he shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. within 10 days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation. Page No.# 3/3 With the aforesaid direction, the pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. Case diary be returned back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant