Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010192652026 2026:GAU-AS:13006 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2136/2026 MIRAJUL HAQUE SON OF MAHKUB ALI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAMLAKUR, PO-BALIKUCHI, PS-MUKALMUA, DISTRICT-NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781126. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHOUDHURY, MS. A KHARBANI,MR T CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 08.09.2026 Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner, i.e. the Accused No.1, in the FIR, has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 410/2026 Page No.# 2/3 registered under Sections 69/316(2)/308(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged on 13-08-2026, by the alleged victim, stating inter alia, that she and the petitioner were having a relationship for the last 4 (four) years and that the petitioner had assured to marry her. She also stated that, family members of both the families have met and spoke about marriage of the alleged victim with the petitioner. However, she stated that the marriage was deferred by the family members of the petitioner and that the petitioner started to cheat her and that on 03-06-2026, the petitioner took her to his house and fled away from his house. She also stated that, after discussion of both the families, a notary agreement was also signed and dates were fixed for solemnizing the court marriage. However, she submits that the court marriage was also deferred and she had also alleged that money was demanded from her and that petitioner had taken Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) showing some need. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, there are no ingredients of cheating or extortion or false promise to marry in the said FIR. According to the learned counsel, the marriage was almost fixed, and there was no question of any extortion or cheating on the part of the petitioner. 5. Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned APP for the State, submits that the contents of the FIR shows that not only the petitioner had deferred the marriage with the victim but also he had taken money from the victim, and in that manner, the petitioner had cheated her, and as such, has prayed for calling of the case diary. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, Page No.# 3/3 more so in view of the fact, that no statement was made with regard to the fact that the petitioner had no intention to marry from the very beginning of the relationship, this court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest 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 Arresting Authority under the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Arresting Authority/IO within 10 days from the date of this order. (ii) The petitioners should not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witness connected with the case; and (iii) The petitioners will not leave their residence without prior permission of the Arresting Authority/I.O. 7. The AB Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant