Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010084572026 2026:GAU-AS:7619 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/898/2026 SNIGDHA BEZBORUAH AND ANR D/O PABITRA BEZBORUAH, R/O DEMOW SUKAFA NAGAR, PS DIMOW, PO DEMOW, DIST SIBSAGAR, ASSAM 2: PARASH PROTIM SONOWAL SON OF PREMESWAR SONOWAL R/O DEMOW KONWAR DEHINGIA GAON PS DIMOW DIST SIBSAGAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, ASIF E HUSSAIN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MD A RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA -ORDER- 01.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the accused Page No.# 2/4 applicant and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant in connection with Demow P.S. Case No.37/2026 under Sections 75 (2)/78 (2)/351 (2) of BNS, 2023. 3. An FIR was lodged on 02.04.2026 alleging that the accused applicant being sister and her Boy friend had been harassing her for sexual favor. After receipt of the FIR, the Police registered the Demow P.S. Case No. 37/2026 under the aforementioned sections. 4. A coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2026 had granted interim pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant No. 1. 5. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that the only section which is non-bailable is Section 75 (2) of the BNS whereas the other alleged offences are bailable. He further submits that Section 75 (2) of the BNS also maximum punishment is 3 (three) years. He submits that looking into the entire factual aspect which involves certain allegations in a property inheritance issue between both the sisters, this Court should consider granting pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant No. 2 also. He further submits that in terms of the earlier interim pre-arrest dated 05.05.2026, the accused applicant No. 1 has already appeared before the I.O. of the case and got her statement recorded. 6. Mr. P. H. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, on the other hand opposes the bail application stating that there are sufficient materials against both the Page No.# 3/4 accused applicants for harassing the informant. 7. The Case Diary in the instant case has been submitted before this Court and the same is perused. 8. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim pre-arrest bail so granted earlier to the accused applicant No. 1 should be made absolute. 9. It is further the opinion of this Court that the accused applicant No. 2 should also be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused applicant No. 2, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with a surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the accused applicant No.2 shall appear before the I.O. of the case within a period of 10 days from the date of passing of this order; (ii)Interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused applicant no. 1 is hereby made absolute; (iii)it is made clear that the accused applicant No. 2 shall not try to influence any of the witnesses who may be involved in the instant case and also shall not try to contact and or get in touch with the informant in the instant case for whatsoever reasons. Page No.# 4/4 In terms of the aforesaid directions, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned, forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant