Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010141022026 2026:GAU-AS:10300 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1894/2026 MOYEEDUL AHMED S/O - ANAM RABBANI A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL - MAJID PATH, ANANDA NAGAR, CHRISTIAN BASTI, HOUSE NO. 04, P.S. DISPUR, P.O. DISPUR, DIST - KAMRUP M ASSAM, PIN - 781005. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, MS. S NISHA SULTANA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. T. Laskar, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the Page No.# 2/3 accused, namely, Moyeedul Ahmed, who has been languishing in jail hajot in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 91/2026, registered under Sections 81/89 of the BNS, 2023, since 18.06.2026. 3. It is to be noted here that the above-mentioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Hamida Khatun (actual name withheld). The allegation against the accused is that he, by deceitful means, caused a belief upon the informant that she is lawfully married to him and thereafter, compelled to cohabit her with him on that belief and later on, when she got pregnant, he forced her to cause miscarriage. 4. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused is innocent and there was an agreement between the parties and pursuant to the said agreement, they lied together as husband and wife and while marital discord surfaced between them, the informant falsely lodged a case against the accused and that he is behind the bars for the last 39 days and that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, he has contended to allow the application. 5. Per contra, Mr. Parashar, learned APP for the State respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. Producing the case diary before this Court, Mr. Parashar submits that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on Page No.# 3/3 record and also gone through the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Parashar, learned APP. 7. The case diary indicates sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused. The offences are serious in nature and the investigation is still going on and enlarging the accused on bail at this stage may hamper the same and therefore, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused. 8. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 9. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant