Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010228242025 2025:GAU-AS:14707 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3346/2025 SRI INDRARUP CHOUDHURY SON OF SRI RUPAK CHOUDHURY, R/O MAA DURGA ENCLAVE, NABODAY NAGAR, PATARKUCHI, BELTOLA, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR TAPOBRAT CHHETRI,MR. J K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for granting of bail in respect of the Page No.# 2/4 accused/petitioner namely Sri Indrarup Choudhury in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 460/25 under Section 77/78/69/123/64 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR was lodged on 04.09.2025 by one Anamika Deb of Nabodoya Nagar, Patarkuchi, PSO-Basistha, District Kamrup (M) with the Officer In-Charge, Basistha Police Station alleging inter alia that her daughter namely Priyanka Deb (18) years old and neighbour Rohan Choudhury (22) M/No 9706939358 were in good relation since last couple of days. In convenience of such relations, Rohan Choudhury captured/made some videos and photos, which he is trying to demolished/ruin the future of the complainant's daughter by sharing the videos and photos through social media (WhatsApp). Complainant's daughter has faced a huge mental depression in her society. The instant case was registered as Basistha P.S Case No. 460/25 u/s 77/78/64 (1)/123 of the BNS, 2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the informant only due to the reason that the petitioner had a falling out with the victim and refused to enter into marriage with her. 5. A perusal of the statement of the victim before the Magistrate as well as the Police would reveal that she had made allegations of forcible rape as well against the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if such a serious incident had actually taken place, the same would have certainly found mentioned in the FIR, but the same is silent in this regard. 7. Although the FIR is not required to contain all the details, the absence of Page No.# 3/4 the most serious allegation therein which was subsequently made before the Police and the Magistrate does create some doubt regarding its occurrence and the medical report also does not support the factum of forcible sexual intercourse. The I.O. has also seized the Mobile Phone of the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner has spent 52 days behind custody. 8. Having regard to the above as well as the period of detention, further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. 10. The petitioner abovenamed shall be released on bail of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in connection with the aforesaid case subject to the following conditions: 1. The accused petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when required. 2. The accused petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. 3. The accused petitioners will not induce or threaten anybody who is acquainted with the facts of the present case. 11. The bail application stands accordingly disposed of. 12. Send back the CD. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant