Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010037202026 2026:GAU-AS:3583 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./562/2026 PRANJAL BASUMATARI ALIAS TUTU S/O HOREN BASUMATARI, R/O AIDEOBARI BAGICHA GAON, P.O. BENGENABARI, P.S. SONARI, DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN 785690 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, GK GOGOI,MR. A DEB Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 11-03-2026 Heard Mr. A A R Karim, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/3 Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 03.02.2026 in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No. 09/2026 u/s 62/69 of BNS, 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 30/2026 at Sonari, Dist. Charaideo, Assam. 3. Case Diary not received as reported, no intimation is also received from the I/O. 4. In that context Mr. Karim, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused/petitioner is in custody since last 37 days and from the materials in the FIR itself it is seen that there was only an attempt as alleged to be made by the present petitioner to commit rape on her. But, the case is registered u/s 62 & 69 of BNS. But, from the statement made in the FIR it is seen that it cannot be a case u/s 69 of BNS. 5. Mr. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there is no direct allegation of having sexual relationship only on the pretext of false marriage. But, there was an attempt to commit rape on the victim and hence he submitted that Case Diary will be needed. 6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, considering the statement in the FIR and other aspects of the case, including the statement of the petitioner, I find that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for further investigation of the case. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Charaideo, Sonari. The accused/petitioner, namely Sri Pranjal Basumatari @ Tutu, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- Page No.# 3/3 (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Charaideo, Sonari without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant