Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010166862026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2270/2026 SHIVANANDA SINGHA S/O. SRI DIBAKAR SINGHA R/O. H.NO.27, ALOK PATH PATARKUCHI ROAD, GUWAHATI P.S.- BASISTHA DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM-781029 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : R DAS, MR. S CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. J A AHMED(INFORMANT),MS J BORUAH(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date :08.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam as well as Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the informant. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Page No.# 2/3 P.R.C Case No. 2328/2026, corresponding to Basistha P.S. Case No. 181 of 2026, registered under Sections 351(2), 351(3), 69 & 89 of B.N.S, 2023, pending before the learned S.D.J.M. No. 1 Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested and was incarcerated for the last 92 days was lodged by the alleged victim herself on 21.09.2021, stating inter alia that the petitioner was in relationship with her and that physical relationship was also there in between them. She stated that she discovered later, that the petitioner was married to another woman and that the said fact was concealed from her and when she spoke to the petitioner; the petitioner told him that he will divorce his wife and stay with her. She also stated that he mislead her with regard to the status of the alleged divorce proceeding with his wife. She also submitted that the petitioner had given false assurances and that she was cheated and because of that, she suffered severe mental, emotional and physical distress. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was already married from before and that, the alleged victim knew about the marriage and she continued with the relationship with the petitioner and had forced the petitioner to divorce his wife. 5. Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned APP, however, submits that the case record which is received by this court did not include the statement of the victim recorded by the Magistrate under section 183 of the BNSS. He also submits that the statement of other witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS is also not there in the records. Page No.# 3/3 6. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, more so in view of the fact that, the victim had continued the relationship with the petitioner even after knowing that the petitioner was married, this court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail, on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Kamrup (Metro) under the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will appear before the Trial Court as and when called for. (ii) The petitioner will not approach the victim at any point of time. (iii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witness connected with the case. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave their residence without prior permission of the Investigating Officer; and (v) Any violation of the said conditions will result in cancellation of the bail. 7. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant