Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010100612025 2025:GAU-AS:7395 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1588/2025 SHAHEDUR S/O ABDUL MAZID VILL-HAJIR CHAR @ AJIRCHAR P.S.BHANGNMARI P.O. BHANGNAMARI DIST.NALBARI, ASSAM PIN-781126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A MOBARAQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 05.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Mobaraque, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam, who submits that though the Case Diary Page No.# 2/3 was called for, however, the same has not been received. He also submits that the Investigating has furnished no reasons for not sending the Case Diary. 2. This bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shahedur, who has been detained behind the bars since 22.03.2025(for the last 76 days), in connection with Bhangnamari P.S. Case No. 08/2025, under Section 326(g) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 21.03.2025, one Baharul Islam, had lodged an FIR, that the present petitioner had set on fire a heap of dry Jute Plant near the Cow Shed, as a result of which, two tin Sheds, wherein 4 ½ Quintals of dry Red Chilli, Solar Battery, coriander and other articles were kept have been burned to ashes. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there was an altercation between both the sides and the father of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Mazid Ali had lodged an First Information Report (FIR) on 21.03.2025 against the informant of the FIR against the present petitioner. 5. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for the last 76 days and considering the length of his detention, the prayer of bail may be allowed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. Page No.# 3/3 7. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has sought for a short date for producing the Case Diary, however, in spite of specific directions by this Court, the Investigating Officer had not sent the Case Diary, neither any reason has been shown for not sending the Case Diary. 8. Further, considering the nature of accusation in this case and the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner (76 days), this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be required for fair completion of the investigation of Bhangnamari P.S. Case No. 08/2025, if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 10. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant