Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010105422025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1618/2025 NABA DEKA ASSISTANT ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR S/O SRI PRABIN DEKA R/O BALAKUCHI, SANDHA NALBARI, ASSAM P.O. AND P.S. BALAKUCHI PIN- 781308 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P P MEDHI, Z HAQUE,MR G BARGAYARY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 30.05.2025 1. Heard Dr. P. P. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. This application under Section 483, of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Naba Deka, who has been detained behind the bars since Page No.# 2/3 22.04.2025 (for last 38 days), in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 230/2025, under Section 61(2)/308(5)/198/199/127(1)/111(3) of B.N.S, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that the one Dil Mahammad had lodged an F.I.R of the Officer-in-Charge of Beltola Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner used to indulged in extortion from the trucks after the same were detained by DTO Officials unauthorisedly. The petitioner used to demand money for releasing the detained trucks. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was earlier arrested in connection with two other cases with similar accusation, wherein, he has already been granted bail by this Court. However, immediately after his release on bail in the earlier cases, he was again arrested in the present case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, who is a government servant has already been suspended from his job and he has been detained behind the bars for last 38 days and considering the period of detention, he prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail 6. On the other hand, Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Basistha P. S. Case No. 230/2025 and has submitted that there was sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner, therefore, she has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, and have gone through the case diary. Though, there are materials against the petitioner in the case diary, however considering the progress made in the investigation as well as the period of detention already undergone by the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner, this Court is of considered opinion that if the above-named petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for the sake of fair completion of the investigation. 8. In view of above discussion, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/-with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) with the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any of the listed witnesses or any other person/persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from discoing such facts during the trial; (ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any offence similar to that with which he is accused of in the instant case. 09. Send back the case diary. 10. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant