Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010112162025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1760/2025 PARTHA DIUK BORAH AND 3 ORS S/O-SURENDRA NATH BORAH R/O-BALIGAON, P. S. -RAHA, DISTRICT-NAGAON, ASSAM 2: MAZAHIR HUSSAIN S/O NASIR UDDIN R/O TELIACHAPORI P.S. RUPOHIHAT DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 3: LAKHYA JYOTI HAZARIKA S/O SHOBA KANTA HAZARIKA R/O RUPOHI P.S. RUPOHIHAT DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 4: PARTHA JYOTI DAIMARY S/O DHARMESWAR DOIMARI R/O GENDHALAI KACHARI GAON P.S.NAGAON (SADAR) DIST.NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S K SARKAR, MS R KALITA,J BAISHYA,MS. S DAS,MR. P Page No.# 2/4 KOCH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Partha Diuk Borah, (2) Mazahir Hussain, (3) Lakhya Jyoti Hazarika, and (4) Partha Jyoti Daimary, who have been detained behind the bars since 14.03.2025 (for the last 88 days) in connection with Panbazar P. S. Case No. 118/2025 under Sections 115(2)/123/140(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 13.03.2025, one Kanta Prasad Khankriyal had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Panbazar Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that his daughter-in-law, namely Ms. Kirti Kumari Gurung, had forcibly taken the son of the informant with her. 4. It is stated in the FIR that the informant suspects that the daughter-in- law have abducted his son and might have hurt him. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are in no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR. 6. He submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, namely, Partha Diuk Borah and Lakhya Jyoti Hazarika, are the employees of one Rehabilitation Centre, namely, Healing Hands Wellness Centre, situated at Panjabari. The other two Page No.# 3/4 petitioners are the inmates of the Rehabilitation Centre, who are themselves under rehabilitation. 7. He submits that in the instant case, the son of the informant was admitted in the Rehabilitation Centre by his own wife and later on, he was released from the Rehabilitation Centre. 8. He further submits that though no materials are there against the present petitioners, however, they are languishing behind the bars for the last 88 days, and considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioners, he prays for allowing the petitioners to go on bail. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in the meanwhile, the daughter-in-law of the informant as well as the owner of the Healing Hands Wellness Centre, have already been released on bail. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced a case diary of Panbazar P. S. Case No. 118/2025 and has submitted that in the statement under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023 of the son of the informant, he has stated that while he was in the Healing Centre, he was forcibly administered some medicine by some of the inmates. 11. Hence, he has also alleged that the staff members of the Rehabilitation Centre used to physically assault. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 13. Without commenting on the merit of the case, merely on the grounds that two of the inmates are already released on bail, as well as considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioners (for the last 88 days), this Court is of considered opinion that if the petitioners cooperate in the investigation, their further custodial interrogation may not be necessary. Page No.# 4/4 14. Hence, the above-named petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. 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. 15. This bail application is, accordingly disposed of. 16. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant