Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010199122026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2702/2026 AMINUL HOQUE, SON OF AKRAM HUSSAIN,RESIDENT OF VILL- LARUAJAN, P.S.- CHAYGAON, DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A W AMAN, MD A RAHMAN,A MISHRA,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 11.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Chaygaon P.S. Case No. 178/2026 registered under Section 69/89/61(2) of BNS, Page No.# 2/3 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested was lodged on 29.08.2026 by the alleged victim herself stating inter alia that she was in relationship with the petitioner for the last 8 years and that she was promised marriage by the petitioner and that they had established physical relationship which however she stated that it was without her consent. She further stated that she requested the petitioner to marry her but then her marriage was deferred by the petitioner and his family. She thereafter stated that she became pregnant because of the physical relationship and then she was forced to undergo an abortion. She also stated that on an earlier occasion too, she underwent an abortion but thereafter she stated that the petitioner went back on his promise and refused to marry her. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly there was a relationship and there is nothing in the FIR that shows that the petitioner had given false promise to marry and as such, he submits the contents of the FIR does not show any offence against the petitioner. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the ingredients of Section 69/89 and 61(2) of BNS is writ large in the FIR. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that there was no protest by the alleged victim for so many years and that she was in relationship with the petitioner which is an admitted petition, 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, Kamrup, Amingaon under the following conditions: Page No.# 3/3 i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when called 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 concerned Court. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant