Biplab Nath Vs the State of Assam

Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

¶16

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 12.03.2026 in connection with Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 52/2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 205(K)/2026 u/s 69 of BNS Act.

¶19

3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same.

¶20

4. It is submitted by Mr. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the petitioner and the victim are major and even if any physical contact was there, it was purely consensual one and from the ingredients found in the FIR also it is seen that the same has been lodged only on the ground of false promise of pretext of marriage she had the sexual relationship. But, the accused/petitioner already got arrested and hence further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in the further investigation of this case. Mr. Munir also submitted that at the time of arrest the Investigating Officer did not comply with the provision of 36(5) of BNSS wherein the signature of witness is also not taken at the time of issuing of Arrest Memo. However, the petitioner had already extended his cooperation as he is in custody and hence his prayer may be considered.

¶21

5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that it is a fact that the persons are major but, the ingredient of Section 69 has been brought in the FIR wherein the petitioner had relationship with the victim on the promise of marriage. Mr. Borthakur also raised the issue that only on the basis of non-compliance of Section 36 of BNSS, the prayer may not be considered at this stage.

¶22

6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, nature of offence and other aspects of this case, I find that further custodial detention

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. In view of this, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail.

¶25

7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon. The accused/petitioner, namely Biplab Nath, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶27

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶28

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon without prior permission.

¶29

The Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Biplab Nath v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biplab Nath v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Sarkar Vs the State of Assam

Anup Baruah and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Pankaj Das Vs the State of Assam

Abu Eusuf Md. Raihan Uddin Vs Rezwana Ferdusi Khanam

Sabinur Ali Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Rahim @ Abdur Rahim Vs the State of Assam