Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010160732026 2026:GAU-AS:14036 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1762/2026 SAJEEV AHMED AND ANR SON OF LATE REJIBUDDIN AHMED,RESIDENT OF DHALAIBIL CHAMDHARA PANIGAON, SONITPUR, ASSAM 2: TABIBUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE MAHAMMAD HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF NEAR WEEKLY MARKET BORMATAH DHALAI BIL NAHARBARI SONITPUR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MD. I HUSSAIN,MR S ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 22.09.2026 Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with all Women PS Case No. 28/2026, registered under Sections 351(3), 81, 69 of B.N.S., 2023. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners have apprehended arrest was lodged by the alleged victim on 16.07.2026, stating inter alia that, she met petitioner no. 1 through an online application and that relationship grew between them and that, the petitioner no. 1 had however, never allowed the victim to meet his mother. As such, the victim further stated that, she herself went to the residence of petitioner no. 1 and found out that petitioner was married. She thereafter, had confronted the petitioner with the said fact but petitioner denied and that, relationship again started but after that the relationship failed. With regard to petitioner no. 2, the only allegation made by the informant victim is that, the petitioner no. 2 along with other family members had threatened her to withdraw the said FIR. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the allegations made in the FIR are concocted and that, there was no relationship of the petitioner no. 1 with the victim and that petitioner no. 2 is also not involved in the said offence. Page No.# 3/3 5. Mr. B. Sarma, the learned APP, on perusal of the Case Diary that the informant victim had stated that she was cheated by the petitioners. 6. It is further seen that, the petitioners were enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail by order dated 03.08.2026, on the condition that the petitioner should appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days and Mr. Sarma, on perusal of the Case Diary submits that the petitioner have appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements are recorded. 7. As such, it is seen that the petitioners are co-operating with the investigation and in that view of the matter, this Court deems it fit to make the order dated 03.08.2026, absolute with the further condition that the petitioners should abide by the directions and conditions mentioned in the said interim order. 8. The AB Applications stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant