Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010169382026 2026:GAU-AS:11797 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2324/2026 MOYEEDUL AHMED S/O ANAM RABBANI, RESIDENT OF MAJID PATH, ANANDA NAGAR, CHRISTIAN BASTI, HOUSE NO. 04, P.S. DISPUR, P.O. DISPUR, DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM, PIN 781005. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. V A CHOWDHURY,MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. D GAGAI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 18-08-2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Borah, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. C. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. P. K. Borthakur, 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.# 2/4 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. Borah, learned counsel for the accused submits that this is the second bail application and the first one was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 27.07.2026, in B.A. No. 1894/2026. Mr. Borah also submits that this application is filed one the ground that while rejecting the earlier bail application the factum of marriage between the parties had not been taken note of and that the informant and the accused lived together as husband and wife on the basis of a notorised Marriage Agreement and as such the Sections, under which the case has been registered, may not be applicable here in this case and that when marital discord surfaced between them, the informant had lodged the FIR against the accused. Mr. Borah also submits that since dismissal of the earlier bail application, considerable time elapsed and further custodial detention may not be warranted in the interest of investigation. His further submission is that the accused is innocent and that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, he has contended to allow the application. Mr. Borah has also produced before the Court the Seizure List of the Marriage Agreement. 5. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned APP for the State respondent has Page No.# 3/4 opposed the petition. He submits that only after perusal of the case diary, earlier petition was rejected and the ground assigned for filing the present petition is not sufficient ground and that the offences alleged in the FIR are serious in nature 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 record and also gone through the bail order dated 27.07.2026, in B.A. No. 1894/2026. 7. Indisputably, the parties herein are major and they lived together as husband and wife since 21.08.2020, on the strength of a Marriage Agreement, that has been seized by the I.O. vide seizure list dated 07.06.2026. And only when marital discord surfaced between them, the informant has lodged the FIR. That being so, the submission of Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the accused appears to have sufficient force. 7.1. Further, it appears that the accused is languishing in jail hazot since 18.06.2026. The I.O. got sufficient time for investigation and in the meantime, the investigation might have been completed. Under such circumstances, this court is of the view that further custodial detention, in the interest of investigation, may not be required. 8. Accordingly, considering the period of detention, the progress of investigation, and also considering the fact that the submission of Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the accused, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. 9. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, the accused, who Page No.# 4/4 has been languishing in jail hazoot in Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 91/2026, registered under Sections 81/89 of the BNS, 2023, since 18.06.2026, shall be enlarged on bail. 10. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant