Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010059182026 2026:GAU-AS:6176 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/676/2026 SURYA YADAV S/O SIMEN TENGABARI, SILAPATHAR P.O. AND P.S. SILAPATHAR, PIN- 787059, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P P MEDHI, MS. U ROY,MAYURI GOGOI,MR G BARGAYARY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 06-05-2026 Heard Mr. P P Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Surya Yadav in connection with Silapathar P.S. Case No. 40/2026 under Sections 329(2)/62/64/75(1) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a fact that the present accused/petitioner and the victim has some relationship though it is morally wrong because the victim is a married lady. When the husband of the informant came to know about the relationship she was insisted to lodge an FIR. But, no such incident took place as alleged in the FIR. However, after the order of interim, he appeared before the I/O, cooperated in the investigation and his statement is accordingly recorded. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the statement made by the victim u/s 183 and 180 BNSS, she brought the allegation of attempt to commit rape on her. However, the accused/petitioner appeared before the I/O and cooperated in the investigation and his statement is also recorded by the I/O. 6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and considering the materials available in the Case Diary, statement of the witnesses as well as the victim, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. In view of this, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the present petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 7. Hence, the order of interim bail dated 27.03.2026 is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant