Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010071832025 2025:GAU-AS:4268 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1058/2025 VISHAL KUMAR GAUTAM S/O SUNIL SINGH RESIDENT OF GEETABHAWAN, H/NO. 72, P.S. SONAPUR, DIST. CHAPRA, BIHAR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GREEN VIEW LAND, H/NO. 1, JYOTIKUCHI, LOKHRA ROAD, P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C K NATH, MR. AJAY SARMA,MR. S MUNIR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 07-04-2025 Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 2/3 State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 18.02.2024 in connection with Garchuk P.S. Case No. 42/2025 u/s 120(B)/381/408/411/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused was arrested in connection with the case on 18.02.2025 and as on for last 39 days he was in custody. Thus, the Investigating Officer has got sufficient time to interrogate the accused-petitioner in the custody. The petitioner was an employee in the State Government and he is not at all involved as alleged in the case. However, the accused/petitioner is still ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case, if he is granted the privilege of bail. 4. Mr. Munir further submitted that one of the co-accused of the present petition was earlier granted bail by this Court in BA 750/2025 dated 27.03.2025 and considering the case of the present petitioner under the same footing, he may also be granted regular bail. 5. Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that from the statement in the FR itself it is seen that the present accused/petitioner may be involved in the alleged offence and accordingly he insisted to call for the Case Diary. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and without going into the detail of the merit of the case, it is seen that the petitioner is behind the bars since last 39 days and thus the Investigating Officer got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner and at Page No.# 3/3 the same time as from the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner it is seen that a certified copy of the bail order of this Court dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned SDJM(S) No. 1, Kamrup (M), wherefrom it is seen that the purchaser of the cement is already being identified and granted bail. 7. 7. So, without going detail on the merit of the case and only considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for further investigation of the case. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 8. 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 (M). The accused/petitioner, namely Vishal Kumar Gautam, 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, Kamrup (M) without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant