Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010094842026 2026:GAU-AS:6959 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1265/2026 ARUNABH SARMA SON OF SRI HIRENDRA KUMAR SARMA RESIDEN TOF VILL- JAPARKUCHI, TERECHIA UNDER NALBARI POLICE STATION IN THE DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B M CHOUDHURY, MR. U CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 20-05-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. B.M. Choudhury for the petitioner Sri Arunabh Sarma, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail he is behind bars since 22.04.2026 in connection with Nalbari Police Station Case No. 69/2026 under Sections Page No.# 2/3 85/89/109(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 R/W Section 3(1)(r)/3(1) (s)/3(1)(z) of ST and SC (Prevention of Atrocities Act). 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R.J. Baruah for the respondent State, who has raised objection stating that the Case Diary is to be produced as there are allegations of forceful abortion as well as strangulation. It is also submitted that the Case Diary was called for, but the Investigating Officer could not produce the Case Diary, owing to Law-and-Order duty. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner got married to the informant way back on 22.09.2017 as per Hindu rites. The allegation of abortion through consumption of medication was way back on 05.12.2017. It is also submitted that this is a dispute between the husband and the wife and a police case has been brought up against the petitioner as the dispute arose between the spouses when the victim got employment in a Government job whereas the petitioner is a gym instructor. 4. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have also considered the submission that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the informant way back in the year 2017. 5. It is submitted that this is a dispute between the spouses and the petitioner had accepted the informant as his wife. The petitioner is a local resident and he is not a flight risk. The petitioner has pledged to cooperate with the remaining part of the investigation and to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him. 6. In view of my foregoing discussions, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with a suitable Page No.# 3/3 surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, under the conditions that :- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every fortnight till completion of investigation, (ii) the petitioner shall not exercise threats on the victim and other witnesses, (iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and, (iv) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. 7. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 8. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant