Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010122272026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1369/2026 SRI MINARUL HOQUE S/O- AJIRUL HOQUE, R/O- VILLAGE JHASKAL PART-3, P.O.- JHASKAL, P.S.- AGOMANI, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:HOSNERA BEGUM D/O- HUSSAIN ALI R/O- VILLAGE JHASKAL PART-3 P.O.- JHASKAL P.S.- AGOMANI DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783335 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I HAQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR N ZAMAN (R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 13.07.2026 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. I. Hoque, learned counsel for the accused applicants. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as Mr. N. Zaman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant Sri Minarul Hoque in connection with Agomani P.S. Case No.130/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1222/2025 under Sections 69 of BNS read with Section 69 of BNS read with Section 6 of POCSO Act 3. The gist of the case as has been narrated in the instant case is that the respondent No.2 was involved in a relationship with the accused applicant for the last two years and made repeated promises to marry her. On the basis of the aforesaid promises, the informant entered into physical relationship with the accused applicant and thereafter, became pregnant. When the same fact was informed to the accused applicant, the accused applicant assured her that he will marry her if she gets rid of her pregnancy. Thereafter, the victim girl took certain medicines and got rid of pregnancy and went to the house of the accused applicant to stay with him. The informant stayed with the family members of the accused applicant for a few days and thereafter, the parents and the accused applicant turned her out from their house and the accused applicant refused to marry her. 4. With the aforesaid allegations, the informant has filed the FIR dated 18.08.2025. After registration of the case, the police investigated into the matter and filed charge-sheet dated 17.11.2025 against the accused applicant. 5. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant is 20 years old and he and the victim girl were in a love relationship and whatever physical relationship he had with the victim girl was consensual in nature. He submits that there was no promise of marriage made by the accused applicant. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that Section 69 of the BNS is not applicable in the instant case and therefore, he prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant. 6. TCR has been received and the same is perused. The learned Additional Public Page No.# 3/3 Prosecutor has opposed the bail application stating that there are incriminating materials available in the TCR against the accused applicant. 7. Mr. N. Zaman, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also adopted the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the TCR, having found prima facie incriminating materials against the accused applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the accused applicant at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the Anticipatory bail application stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant