Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010129932026 2026:GAU-AS:10523 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1403/2026 SAIDUL ISLAM SO NUR ISLAM, RO VILL DUALIPARA, PS DALGAON, DIST DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN 784115 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN, MR. M ALOM,MS. F H AHMED,MRS. S Y AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. M. K. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Saidul Islam, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Pragjyotishpur P.S. Page No.# 2/3 Case No. 53/2026, registered under Section 87of BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR dated 03.05.2026 was lodged by the mother of the victim wherein it was stated inter alia that her daughter was found missing from her home and even on search been made, her daughter could not be found. It is also stated that the mobile phone of her daughter was also found to be switch off and on suspicion it was stated that the petitioner is involved in the said case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the daughter of the informant had a love relationship and the daughter of the informant had herself gone to the house of the petitioner and she was found missing. 5. Learned Additional Public prosecutor has placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS wherein she stated that she was in relationship with the petitioner for the past two years and that she had left her house on her own volition and went with the petitioner. She also stated that she initially stayed in the house of the petitioner’s sister after eloping with him and thereafter, she came to the petitioner’s house and was living with the petitioner in the said house. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds the following: The petitioner is the brother in law of the victim and that it is also found that the petitioner was having a love relationship with the victim and although, the age of the victim was not reflected in the FIR but she in her statement before the Magistrate had stated that she was 17 years of age. But at the same time she revealed that she was having relationship with the petitioner and she on her own volition had gone with him and that she stayed with him at various places. 7. Although, the consent of the petitioner if she is a minor will not be relevant but seeing her statement and her age not being reflected in the FIR, this Court Page No.# 3/3 deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions that the petitioner: (a) will appear before the IO as and when call for; (b) will not influence the witness connected with the case. (c) will not hamper or tamper with the evidence of the case. 8. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant