Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010106362025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1696/2025 RINKU TALUKDAR AND ANR S/O- LATE PRABIN TALUKDAR. R/O- HOUSING COLONY, BUILDING NO.5, ROOM NO.8, P.S.- CHANDMARI. DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 2: PRADIP KALITA S/O- LATE GAJENDRANATH KALITA. R/O- SILPUKHURI CHANDANGIRI P.S.- CHANDMARI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM,MR K HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 has been filed by the Page No.# 2/3 petitioners, namely, 1. Rinku Talukdar and 2. Pradip Kalita, who are detained behind the bars since 09.05.2025 in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 123/2025 under Section 61(2)(a)/109(1)/126(2)/309(4)/351(2)/296 of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 07.05.2025, one Kumar Debasish Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Chandmari Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on that day at about 2:45 PM when the informant along with his friend Tanmoy Kazi and Raktim Ranjan Bora were returning from their rental accommodation to Jalukbari, when they reached near commerce point opposite Gauhati Commerce College, one Dishan Bhagabati along with 7-8 unknown persons assaulted them and also threatened them to kill them. It is also alleged that slang language were used on them by the assailants and their golden chain was also snatched along with some money. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners though were present in the place where the incident occurred have not assaulted the informant and are not involved in the offence in this case. He also submit that the petitioners are detained behind the bars for last 34 days and considering the period of detention they may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced a case diary of Chandmari P.S. Case No. 123/2025 and has submitted that at least three persons got injured in the incident. However, he fairly submits that the injuries sustained by the victims are simple in nature. He further submits that the petitioners are implicated by the victim persons in their statement and one accused person is yet to be arrested. He, therefore, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of Chandmari P.S. Case No. 123/2025. Page No.# 3/3 7. It appears from the record that the investigation has fairly progressed and considering the fact that the injuries sustained by the victim are of simple nature and the petitioners are already detained behind the bars for last 34 days, the said period appears to be sufficient for the progress of the investigation. 8. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that if the above named petitioners co- operate in the investigation, their further custodial detention may not be necessary for the fair completion of Chandmari P.S. Case No. 123/2025. 9. In view of above, both the above named petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation; 10. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant