Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010090362026 2026:GAU-AS:6489 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/958/2026 BAHAR UDDIN SON OF ABDUL SALAM RESIDENT OF VILL- SUNAIRPAR,P.O. PECHALA, P.S. RATABARI,DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788734 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR. A K AZAD,MR K UDDIN,MR. N HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 12.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner who is apprehending arrest in connection with Ratabari P.S. Case No. 60/2026. 3. The petitioner was in a relationship with the informant girl, and during the subsistence of their relationship, they had physical relations with each other. However, despite the said relationship, the family members of the girl solemnized her marriage with another person, to which she had consented. 4. After a few months of marriage, the relationship between the girl and her husband broke up and the petitioner and the girl again continued their relationship. 5. One day, the petitioner allegedly called the girl in his house. When she reached his house, his family members assaulted her. 6. In order to buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgment that was delivered in Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3471 paragraph Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of the said Judgment are quoted as under: “ 29. It will be very difficult to assume that the complainant who is otherwise a mature person with two grown up children, was unable to discover the deceitful behavior of the appellant who continued to have sexual relationship with her for such a long period on the promise of marriage. Any such mendacious act of the appellant would have been exposed sooner without having to wait for nine years. The inference one can draw under the circumstances is that there was no such false promise made to the complainant by the appellant of marriage by continuing to have physical relationship so as to bring this act within the province of Section 376 IPC and therefore, there was no vitiation of consent under misconception of fact. Page No.# 3/3 30. Further, it appears that discontinuance of financial support to the complainant, rather than the alleged resiling from the promise to marry by the appellant appears to be the triggering point for making the allegation by the complainant after a long consensual relationship for about nine years. 31. In our view if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the Court must also be mindful.” 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the both sides. 8. This Court is of the opinion that in the FIR, there is no apparent allegation against the present petitioner. Therefore, he does not deserves to be detained in custody. His application is allowed. 9. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest in connection with Ratabari P.S. Case No. 60/2026, the petitioner Bahar Uddin shall be released on bail of Rs.25,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 10. With the aforesaid direction, this pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant