Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010147042026 2026:GAU-AS:10866 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1630/2026 ASHRAFUL ISLAM S/O HANIF ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAMADARHAT, SUNDARPARA PART-II, P.S. FAKIRGANJ, DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783330. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, I A KHAN,MS F INTAZ,MS. ASMINA BEGUM,MR M H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 05.08.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with All Women P.S. Case No. 13/2026, under Sections 69/351(2)/78(2) of the BNS, this application under Section 482, Page No.# 2/3 BNSS is preferred by applicant, namely, Ashraful Islam, for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Asifa Khatun (actual name withheld) on 23.02.2026. The essence of allegation against the present applicant is that in spite being married, he had developed an affair with the informant and with a promise to marry her, established physical relationship with her and when the informant came to know about his antecedent and snapped relation with him, then he started sending those obscene photographs and videos to her family, office, friends and isolated her, and he also emotionally blackmailed her. 4. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the case has been registered under Sections 69/351(2)/78(2) of the BNS, ingredients of the offence under Section 69 of the BNS is not made out as the victim is a major girl and knowing fully well, she involved with the applicant, and that rest of the offences are bailable. He also submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency, and therefore, he has contended to allow this application. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court and referring to the statements of the witnesses recorded by the I.O., especially to the statement of wife of the applicant, he submits that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the applicant as he is a habitual offender, and therefore, he has contended to dismiss the application. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on Page No.# 3/3 record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. It appears that during the course of investigation, the I.O. has examined the complainant/victim as well as the wife of the applicant, and he has collected sufficient materials in respect of the allegations made in the FIR. 8. And having considered the statement of the victim/complainant recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023, and considering the statement of the wife of the applicant and the antecedent of the applicant, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the applicant and accordingly, this application stands dismissed. 9. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant