Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010182562026 2026:GAU-AS:12336 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2007/2026 MUKESH KUMAR SHAW S/O LATE SABILAL SHAW, R/O HARAPUTA, TELIPARA, P.S GOSSAIGAON, DISTRICT KOKRAJHAR, BTC, ASSAM. REP. BY HIS MOTHER MANJULA SHAW VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MR. J JAKARIA,MR. MD IMDAD,MR. J ALI,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 27.08.2026 Heard Ms. F. Hussain, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused-applicant, namely, Mukesh Kumar Page No.# 2/3 Shaw, in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 107/2026, under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. One FIR was lodged on 01.06.2026, by the informant before the Officer-in- Charge, Gossaigaon Police Station alleging that there was talk of marriage between the informant and the accused-applicant and accordingly, the families talked about the marriage and decided to schedule the same on 07.05.2026. It is alleged that before the marriage, though the accused-applicant was staying in Dubai, there were constant exchanges of messages through mobile as well as video calls. It is also alleged that when he visited his hometown, he met the informant and on promise of marriage, he had sexual intercourse with her. Further, it is alleged that before the scheduled date of marriage, there was a dowry demand of Rs. 6,00,000/- and 20 grams of gold ornaments, which could not be fulfilled by the family of the informant, and therefore, the accused- applicant had broken the marriage and went to Dubai and thereafter, no communication could made with the accused-applicant. 4. In view of the aforesaid FIR, Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 107/2026 was registered. 5. Ms. Hussain, learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that there was no intention of cheating in the instant case, but due to certain genuine issues, the marriage was broken and thereafter, the accused-applicant had gone back to his work place i.e. Dubai. She also submits that Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 is not attracted in the instant case as there was no cheating involved in the instant case while having any kind of sexual intercourse between the persons. She further submits that Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is also not attracted in the instant case as there was no demand for dowry in the instant case. Page No.# 3/3 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail. 7. This Court, after considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the whole matter in entirety, is of the considered opinion that the accused-applicant should be granted pre-arrest bail. 8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest of the accused-applicant by the Investigating Officer in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 107/2026, under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, he shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/-, with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) The accused-applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today. (ii) The accused-applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (iii) The accused-applicant shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in whatsoever manner. 9. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the instant AB stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant