Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010074802025 2025:GAU-AS:9278 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1091/2025 REETAM SINGH S/O SRI BALAWANT SINGH, R/A FLAT NO. 3B, PROKASH ENCLAVE, HARBALA ROAD, ULUBARI, P.S.- PALTANBAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-781007, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MS. H BORAH,MS A DEVI,MR. H. BURAGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 18.07.2025 Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Morigaon P.S. Case No. 90/2025, under Sections 152/196(1)(a)/196(1) (b)/299/353(1)(b)/353(1) (c)/356(Q) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 67 of I.T. Act, 2000, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 411/2025, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon. 3. This Court, vide order dated 10.04.2025, while granting interim bail to the present petitioner, had directed the prosecution to produce the updated Case Diary along with the FSL Report. However, although the updated Case Diary has been placed before this Court, the FSL Report has not been submitted despite the matter having been listed on subsequent 2 (two) occasions. 4. In this context, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that during the course of investigation, the petitioner has admitted to having made the alleged post on social media. However, the FSL report, which was directed to be produced before this Court, has not yet been received till date. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted in this regard that all the relevant digital devices of the petitioner have already been seized and are in the custody of the Investigating Agency. More so, he submitted that no new material has been placed before this Court indicating that the petitioner has violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court in the interim bail order or that his further custodial interrogation is necessary. Page No.# 3/3 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also on perusal of the record, it is seen that this Court, while granting interim bail to the present petitioner vide order dated 10.04.2025, had examined the facts in detail and directed the prosecution to produce the FSL Report. However, even after lapse of many dates, the I.O. has failed to produce the said report. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that mere delay in obtaining the FSL Report cannot be a ground to indefinitely keep the present bail application pending, especially when the petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions of the interim bail and hence, I find that further custodial interrogation of the present seems to be not necessary at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 10.04.2025 is hereby made absolute, subject to the same terms and conditions as stipulated in paragraph No. 13 of the said order, which shall remain binding on the petitioner during the pendency of the investigation. 8. It is made clear that the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of any violation of the conditions by the petitioner or if any fresh materials come to light warranting reconsideration of his bail status. 9. With the above observations, the present bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant