Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010162702026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1798/2026 SANJAY CHOUDHURY SON OF LATE SHAMBHU CHOUDHURY, RESIDENT OF C/O. PUROBI LALUNG MALAKAR, HOUSE NO. 15, BHAGADATTAPUR, DAHKINGAON, P.O. KAHILIPARA, P.S. DISPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781019. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R SODIAL, MUFIDUL ISLAM,MR. M H SAIKIA,MR. RAJIB ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. MR Sodial, 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 pre-arrest bail in connection Page No.# 2/3 with All Women P.S. Case No. 14/2026 registered under Sections 269/69 of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged by the victim herself stating inter alia that she got friendly with the petitioner and that later the petitioner proposed her for marriage. She stated that she was already a married lady and a divorce proceeding was going in with her husband and that the petitioner upon knowing the same had promised her that after her divorce, he will got married to her. She thereafter stated that she wanted to go to one temple and that the petitioner accompanied her and during her stay in the hotel near the temple, the petitioner on the promise to marry had sexual intercourse with her. She however upon returning to her home and on seeing his mobile phone saw some photographs with other ladies and that she confronted him but then he promised to marry her. She also stated that she got pregnant and that the petitioner upon knowing it distanced himself from her and had refused to marry her. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and the victim was in relationship and the petitioner had never given any false promise to marry and that with time the marriage broke down. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on perusal of the Case Diary submits that the petitioner and the victim were in relationship and that later on the petitioner had refused to marry her. He had also placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that it is noticed that the victim and the petitioner were in relationship and that the victim had never complained against him that he had falsely promised to marry her, 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 satisfaction of 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 without fail. ii) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when called for. 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 Arresting Authority. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant