Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010193292026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2150/2026 ACHINTYA PATANGIA SON OF NIRMAL PATANGIA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DHEKIAJULI, TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HENGRABARI, NEAR HOUSING COLONY, GUWAHATI-36, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T K MISRA, DIPTI CHAKRAVARTY,MR. P K MUNIR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 09.09.2026 Heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 625/2026 registered under Section 69/296/351(3) of Page No.# 2/3 BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged by the victim herself on 24.08.2026 stating inter alia that she and the petitioner are working as Journalists/Reporters and that on 27.06.2026 i.e. almost two months before lodging of the FIR, the informant on repeated request invited the petitioner to her room and when she went to make coffee for the petitioner, the petitioner went inside the kitchen and hugged her from behind. The informant further stated that thereafter the petitioner promised to marry her and then induced her to enter into physical relationship with him. She submitted that believing on his promise, she entered into physical relation with the petitioner and that she got pregnant and thereafter when she requested the petitioner to marry her but the petitioner had deferred the same. It is also alleged that the petitioner was maintaining a physical relationship with another woman and that the other women had also scolded her in obscene language. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the informant were in love relationship for long and that there was no false promise to marry on the part of the petitioner. He submits that the later part mentioned in the FIR is a concocted story. 4. On the other hand, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that there are allegations that petitioner had forced the informant to abort a child after she got pregnant on entering into physical relationship with the petitioner. As such, he submits that the Case Diary be perused and bail may not be granted at this stage. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that the ingredients of Section 69 i.e. false promise of marriage is not revealed from the FIR, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one Page No.# 3/3 local surety of the like amount to the Arresting Authority under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. ii)the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when call for. ii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant