Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010172532026 2026:GAU-AS:11808 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1920/2026 TANJIL AHMED ALIAS TANJIL HUSSAIN AND ANR S/O ALAL UDDIN, R/O VILL PUB SUALONI, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM 2: MAMTAJ BEGUM W/O ALAL UDDIN R/O VILL PUB SUALONI DIST NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR J K BORDOLOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 19.08.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. S. Nawaz for the accused-applicants and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused-applicants, 1. Tanjil Ahmed @ Tanjil Hussain and 2. Mamtaj Begum apprehending arrest in connection with Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 227/2026 registered under Sections 137 (2)/87/127 (2)/79/3 (5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. An FIR was lodged by the informant before the Officer-in-Charge of Ambagan Police Out Post alleging that on 21.07.2026, the accused No.1 after enticing her daughter had taken her from the informant’s house with the promise of marriage; after enquiry by the informant, she came to know that accused persons had confined her daughter in their house; when the informant’s husband went to bring her back, the accused applicants refused to let her go and verbally abused them by using obscene language. On receipt of the FIR, police registered the Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 227/2026. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused-applicants submits that accused No.1 is an 18 year old boy and the accused No.2 is his mother. He submits that the girl and the boy were having a love affair and the girl voluntarily visited the house of the accused applicant No.1. He further submits that girl has already been handed over to her parents as revealed from the order dated 28.07.2026 and her statement has also been recorded; and as such, custodial detention of the accused applicant, will not be required in the instant case, and therefore, they should be granted pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor submits that Case Diary in the instant case may be required. 6. Keeping into account the whole aspects of the matter as well the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre-arrest bail should be granted to the accused- Page No.# 3/3 applicants. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused- applicants named above in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- each with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: i) The accused-applicants shall appear before the investigating officer within a period of 10 days of passing of this order; ii) The accused-applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available as and when called for by the investigating officer; and iii) The accused-applicants shall not try to tamper or hamper with the investigation in any manner, whatsoever. 8. In terms of the above directions, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant