Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010116702026 2026:GAU-AS:8327 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1248/2026 GITANJALI BISWAS WIFE OF NIRMAL DEBNATH RESIDENT OF RANGIA TOWN WARD NO 6 PO AND PS RANGIA DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS G DEKA, MS. S R KALITA,MS M DEB Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 Heard Ms. G. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Rangia P.S. Case Page No.# 2/3 No. 104/2026, registered under Sections 329(4)/308(2)/351(2)/318(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. An FIR was lodged on 23.04.2026 by one Nirmal Debnath, alleging, inter alia, that his wife, after being separated, got married to some other person without being divorced and thereafter, started blackmailing and demanded money from him. It was alleged that the accused-applicant came to the informant’s shop and created disturbances and threatened the informant with dire consequences if her demand of Rs. 2 lakhs is not met with by the informant. 4. In view of the aforesaid FIR, police registered Rangia P.S. Case No. 104/2026, under the aforementioned Sections. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not demanded any money from the informant and in fact, both were earlier married and after their separation, they have been staying separately and on mutual agreement, the informant, i.e., the husband of the accused-applicant was paying certain amount for the maintenance of their children. However, since he stopped paying the aforesaid amount, she has requested payment of certain amount. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that there is no offence committed by the accused-applicant in the instant case and no custodial detention is required in the instant case. Therefore, the accused-applicant should be allowed to go on pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. P.P., however, opposes the prayer of pre- arrest bail at this stage. 7. This Court has gone through the materials that have been produced before this Court. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused-applicant should be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, it Page No.# 3/3 is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused-applicant in connection with Rangia P.S. Case No. 104/2026, she shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: - (1) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days of passing of the instant order; (2) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate with the trial and make herself available before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for; (3) That the accused-applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Authority; 8. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant