Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010187722026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2564/2026 NURJAMAL SHEIKH S/O FAYEZUDDIN SK @ FAYESH SK, R/O RAJAPARA PT- 1, P.O. AND P.S.- BAGRIBARI, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783349 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR A MALEK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Bagribari P.S. Case No. 51/2026 registered under Sections 117(2)/69 of the Page No.# 2/3 BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner has been arrested was lodged on 31.07.2026 by the victim herself stating inter alia that the petitioner had lured and fraudulently deceived her under the pretext of marriage, since five years of lodging of the FIR. She submits that she was minor when the relationship started and now that she is major and the relationship still continues. She submits that the petitioner has promised to marry her, but when she reminds him of that, he defers it and he has exploited her sexually. She also submits that on 28.07.2026, while she was alone at home, the petitioner came and raped her and when she told him to marry her, he left her home and when she followed the petitioner to the market, the petitioner assaulted her and that her mother reached and saved her. The victim also stated that the petitioner is a married man and that she did not know about the same. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire story narrated by the victim is a concocted story. He submits that both the petitioner and the victim are from the same village and failure to know that the petitioner is a married person cannot be believed on the part of the victim. 4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the allegations in the FIR are very serious and that the contents of the Case Diary should be seen. He also submits that the Trial Court upon perusal of the Case Diary and on finding incriminating materials, rejected the bail application. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that the petitioner and the victim were Page No.# 3/3 in relationship for a long period of time and that during that period, the victim had never complained, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Kokrajhar under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will not approach the victim at any point of time. ii) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when call for without fail iii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iv) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the concerned Court. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant