Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010119752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1857/2025 ANOWER HUSSAIN S/O MD. ROIJUDDIN R/O VILL-SIMILABARI, NEAR MASJID P.O. RANGAPANI, P.S. MERESWAR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M CHOUDHURY, MR. M MONDAL,MR. S M MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. M. Mollah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Anower Hussain who has been detained behind the bars since 09.04.2025 in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 327/2025 under Sections Page No.# 2/3 117(2)/ 140(2)/ 3(5)/ 308(5)/ 351(2) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 10.03.2025, one Manowar Khan had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Dispur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 08.03.2025 at about 8:40 PM when he was coming from Ganeshguri wholesale market, one person asked for lift on his bike and when the informant offered lift to the said person he took him in a house at Rukminigaon and went to a room where the informant was locked from outside and thereafter two girls came into the room and removed their cloths and thereafter another three persons came and recorded video of the whole situation and thereafter money was demanded from the informant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier occasion also the petitioner had approached this Court, however, his prayer for bail was rejected by order dated 21.05.2025 in Bail Application No. 1440/2025 after perusal of the case diary. He submits that since the date of rejection, more than one month have lapsed since the date of last rejection order and the petitioner has already completed 78 days behind the bars and, therefore, considering the period of detention, he submits that he may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that on the earlier occasion, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected after finding sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner after perusal of the case diary. He, therefore, submits that there is no doubt that there is sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner in the case diary. However, he prays for some more time for producing an up-to-date case diary. Page No.# 3/3 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. On perusal of the earlier bail rejection order dated 21.05.2025, it appears that there are materials against the petitioner in the case diary, however, the earlier rejection order was passed more than a month ago and the total period of detention undergone by the petitioner has become 78 days today. Hence, considering the nature of the offence as well as the period of detention undergone, this Court is of the considered opinion that his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Dispur P.S. Case No. 327/2025, if he co-operates in the investigation. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner 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 petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 9. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant