Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010048162026 2026:GAU-AS:6520 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/520/2026 RAJU RONGPHAR S/O SARTHE RONGPHER, R/O BALIJAN, P.O. KARAGAON, P.S. KHATKHATI, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K BARMAN, MR. R KONWAR,MR D PEGU,MR H ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R BORA(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 12-05-2026 Heard Mr. H Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M P Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Mr. R. Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the informant. Page No.# 2/4 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, Raju Rongphar in connection with Kheroni P.S. Case No. 10/2026 under Sections 69/131/296/324(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner that after obtaining the order of pre-arrest bail, the petitioner accordingly appeared before the I/O, cooperated in the investigation and his statement is also recorded. He further submitted that it is a fact there is a love relationship between the petitioner and the victim and in pursuant to that after having some rituals they started living together as a husband and wife. He even took her to his official quarter, he introduce her to every officials as his wife. But, she was insisting him to go for some rituals and as there was no ritual of her choice, she started quarrelling with him and she also left his official quarter on her own after he got transferred to another place. But, he never hide his relationship with the victim and she was rather considered as his wife and introduced her before every officials as well as the other members of his family as his wife. Thus, the Section 69 and other related sections does not attract against him. However, he is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in the further investigation of this case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 4. Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that it is a fact that the victim also admitted their relationship and it is also admitted that there was some rituals between them and they stayed together as a husband and wife in his official quarter and they lived peacefully. But, during that period the mother and the other relatives of the accused came to their official residence and assaulted her and tortured her by throwing her all Page No.# 3/4 household goods. Thereafter, the petitioner also stared torturing her mentally and physically and also tried to stop every relationship with her and for which she had to institute the present case. 5. Mr. Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the informant also submitted that it is a fact that there was a relationship between both the parties. But, from the very inception of their relationship, he had the intention to deceive her. It is an admitted fact that some mutual engagement had taken place between them but. there was no formal marriage or registration of marriage between the petitioner and the victim till date. He further submitted that subsequently he tried to avoid her and also blocked her mobile no. when she was ready to lodge an FIR. But, due to intervention of the SP concerned, she did not lodge any FIR and thereafter the petitioner also unblocked his mobile no. But, after he got transferred to Kheroni police station, he stopped every relationship with her and thus deceived her and cheated her with the false promise of marriage. Mr. Bora accordingly submitted that it may not be a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner at this stage. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Case Diary. On perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner appeared and accordingly cooperated in the investigation and his statement is also recorded by the I/O. On perusal of the 183 BNSS statement of the victim it is seen that both of them had the relationship with each other and they also started living together as a husband and wife and he also introduced her before his officials as his wife. But, as submitted by the learned Add. PP, thereafter some dispute arose between them and there was differences between them. It Page No.# 4/4 is also alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical assault, which was reported to some of the witnesses who accordingly stated that they have heard from the victim that the petitioner used to torture her mentally and physically in the official quarter. Thus, it is seen that some incriminating materials brought against the present petitioner in her statement recorded u/s 180 & 183 BNSS. However, it cannot be denied that the present petitioner introduced her as his wife before the official colleagues as well as the other family members. 7. Considering all these aspects of the matter, materials available in the Case Diary and the cooperation extended by the present petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the present petitioner. 8. Hence, the order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 12.03.2026 is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant