Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010043262025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/505/2025 MD JAKIR HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL LATIF, R/O DURABANDHI BEEL, P.S. MOIRABARI, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM 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 MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 30.04.2025 Heard Mr. S.M. Abdullah P, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for granting Page No.# 2/4 regular bail to the petitioner, i.e. Md. Jakir Hussain, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Moirabari Police Station Case No. 181/2024 registered under Section 61(2)/74/79 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 67(a) of the Information Technology Act. 3. The facts of the case is that on 04.11.2024, the informant namely Alpin Yesmin Aktara has lodged an F.I.R before the Officer-In-Charge of Laharighat P.S. alleging inter alia that the informant married with the petitioner about 6 years ago and they have a 4 years old daughter. After their marriage the petitioner tortured her inhumanly upon instigation of the accused No.2. She tolerated all the torture silently by thinking about her future life. They are torturing her more by understanding her simplicity and on 02.04.2024, she broke the marriage with the petitioner and the petitioner took his daughter. About 3 months ago, the informant got married for the 2nd time with one Tafazzul Islam of Borkhabol village and started living a peaceful life. But the petitioner and other accused person created bad photographs and posted it on social media and created unpleasant situation in their conjugal life. The petitioner and other accused person attempted to create misunderstanding between her husband and husband's family by releasing the photographs and planned to bring darkness in her life by destroying her present conjugal life. The said FIR was received by the Officer-In-Charge, Laharighat P.S. and the same was forwarded to O/C, Moirabari P.S. and subsequently the same was registered against the petitioner as Moirabari Police Station Case No. 181/2024, U/S- 61(2)/74/79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, R/W Sec. 67(a) of the Information Technology Act. Hence, the anticipatory bail application. 4. Mr. S.M. Abdullah P, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner is no way involved in the case as stated in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner was married with the informant and was living happily. However, later on, she was in a relationship with one Tafazzul Islam and therefore, left him and also sent Talaque Nama. However, after their marriage having been fallen apart, she has falsely lodged the present FIR. 5. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that certain obscene photographs of the informant has been uploaded in the social media by the petitioner and the Case Diary reveals that the screenshots of such photographs was produced by the informant to the Investigating Officer. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and also perused the material available on record. 7. It appears that the informant has produced screenshots of obscene photographs of her alleged to have been taken and uploaded in social media by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer. It further appears that the present FIR has been filed after almost 6 years since the marriage of the petitioner and the informant had dissolved. It further appears that after the said marriage having been dissolved with the petitioner, the informant had married another person. However, that marriage has also in the meantime dissolved. It further appears that there is nothing adverse criminal antecedent available in the Case Diary against the petitioner. It further appears that there is nothing available in the records to indicate that the petitioner shall flee from justice. 8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner Page No.# 4/4 perhaps may not be justified. 9. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, in connection with the above noted case on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the conditions: - (a) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days, failing which on and from the 11th day, this pre-arrest bail order shall have no force; and (b) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (c) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any offences similar in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission. 10. In terms of the above, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant