Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010067362025 2025:GAU-AS:4375 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1030/2025 MANJAR HUSSAIN @ MANJAR ALI S/O LT. ABDUL KADER R/OVILL-GHILAGURI, P.O. KAKORA GOAN P.S.BASUGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. S Z B AKLAS, MR. B K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR J HUSSAIN (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 08-04-2025 Heard Mr. S Z B Aklas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Mr. J. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the Page No.# 2/3 informant. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for granting regular bail to the accused/petitioner who was arrested on 20.03.2025 in connection with Bongaigaon Police Station Case No. 385/2024, under Sections 366-A/323/354/498-A/294/506/34 IPC R/W 9/11 PCM Act. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Aklas, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused/petitioner was arrested in connection with the case on 20.03.2025 and since then he is in custody. After lodging of the FIR there was a compromise between the parties as the dispute arose due to some misunderstanding and the petitioner and the victim were residing happily as husband and wife. The compromise agreement is also executed by the parties in connection with the case. Further he submitted that considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused and the compromise between the parties, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. However, he being the local resident will co-operate the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of bail. 4. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that Case Diary is not available before the Court to assess the materials on record. But, from the FIR it is seen that sufficient allegation has been brought against the present petitioner and the case is still under investigation and raised objection in granting bail to the present petitioner. 5. Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in this regard that the matter has been compromised and the parties were living together as husband and wife with their minor children. The informant has no Page No.# 3/3 objection if the present petitioner is allowed to go on bail. Rather, she is facing trouble in absence of the present petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and also considering the compromise between the parties and also the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for interest of the investigation of the case. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 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, Bongaigaon. The accused/petitioner, namely Manjar Hussain @ Manjar Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Bongaigaon without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant