Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010205022026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2875/2026 BAPAN DAS S/O NARAYAN DAS, R/O DAKHIN PANIYAL GURI, PS SHYAMOTTOLA, DIST ALIPURDUWAR, WEST BENGAL VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR P SONOWAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 22.09.2026 Heard Mr. K. Thakur, 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 Basistha PS Case No. 350/2026 registered under Sections 74/75(1)(i)(ii)/79 of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested on Page No.# 2/3 10.09.2026 was lodged on 09.09.2026 by the informant stating inter alia that she has been working in the restaurant for the last 8 months and that the petitioner who was also working as a cook in the said restaurant had proposed her for love and on denial of the same, the petitioner is stated to have mentally and physically harassed her. It is also stated that the petitioner has chased her with a weapon and had hit her. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of the offences mentioned in the said FIR are not attracted inasmuch as there is no action on the part of the petitioner to outrage the modesty of the victim. He also submits that the mandatory notice required to be served upon him under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is also not given to him. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand submits that it is specifically stated in the FIR that petitioner had assaulted the victim and had also mentally harassed her. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that there is nothing both in the FIR as well as in the forwarding report regarding outraging of modesty of the victim, 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(M), under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will at no point of time approach or contact the victim. ii) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. iii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither Page No.# 3/3 influence the witnesses connected with the case. iv) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the concerned Court. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant