Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010122312025 2025:GAU-AS:9327 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1893/2025 MANIK DAS S/O LT. CHANDRA DAS @ NATHUKA VILL- 2 NO. RUPTOLI, P.S. BIHPURIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MR. D N BORAH,MR. R K MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 21.07.2025 Heard Mr. P. Bordoloi, learned counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, is preferred by the accused/petitioner, namely, Shri Manik Das, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 17.04.2025 in connection with PRC Case No. 208/2025 [corresponding to G. R. Case No. 165/2025 arising out of Biphuria P.S. Case No. 34/2025], registered under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/3(5) of BNS which is pending before the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 3. The scanned copy of the Trial Court record has already been received, and I have perused the same. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, pursuant to the order dated 06.06.2025, the additional affidavit could not be submitted by the petitioner till date. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the accused/petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner was arrested on 17.04.2025 and has been in custody for the last 96 days. He further submits that, as the case has already been charge-sheeted and the petitioner, as P.W.1, along with two other witnesses, has already been examined, there is no likelihood of tampering with or hampering the evidence in the present case. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the record, and there is no chance of absconding. Rather, he will regularly appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed for hearing. Page No.# 3/4 5. On the other hand, Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that further custodial detention may be required for the accused/petitioner. She also submits that the injury sustained by the victim is grievous in nature, and therefore, she objects to the prayer for bail being considered at this stage. 6. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, and I have perused the case record. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the length of detention, i.e., 96 days, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the accused/petitioner does not appear to be necessary at this stage. 7. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, the accused/petitioner, namely, Shri Manik Das, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur as and when the date is fixed; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, without prior permission. Page No.# 4/4 8. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant