Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010129602025 2025:GAU-AS:9125 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2011/2025 DIPAK BASUMATARY AND ANR S/O MOLENDRA BASUMATARY R/O VILL- SIMLIBARI (NK ANGARKATA), P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. TAMULPUR, ASSAM PIN-781367 2: BIKRAM BASUMATARY S/O LATE MANIRAM BASUMATARY R/O VILL- SISUBARI (NK ANGARKATA) P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. TAMULPUR ASSAM PIN- 78136 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M RANA, MD. I AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 15.07.2025 Heard Mr. M. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for the grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 121/2024, registered under Section 376(D) of the IPC, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 104/2024, which is pending before the learned Sessions Court, Mushalpur, Baksa. 3. The scanned copy of the TCR called for has already been received, and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the accused/petitioners are innocent and they are not involved in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the accused/petitioners were arrested merely on suspicion on 04.06.2024, and since then, they are behind the custody for the last 407 days. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed on 30.06.2024, and till date, 6 (six) out of 14 (fourteen) prosecution witnesses, including the victim and the informant, have been examined. Thus, he submits that there is no possibility of hampering or tampering with the witnesses at this stage. Therefore, he prays that, considering the length of their detention, the bail application of the present petitioners may be considered. He further submitted that the accused/petitioners are permanent residents of their addressed localities, and there is no likelihood of their absconding; rather, they will appear and contest the case on each and every date fixed by the learned Sessions Judge. Page No.# 3/4 5. He also submitted that before the accused/petitioners were arrested, they were summoned by the police for interrogation, and only thereafter were they arrested in connection with this case. He further raised the ground of non- furnishing of the grounds for arrest, which were not mentioned in the notice issued to the petitioners under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., which itself, constitutes a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, rendering such arrest illegal and arbitrary. Hence, without even delving into the merits of the case, the petitioners are entitled to be granted bail. 6. Per contra, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that sufficient incriminating material has been collected against the accused/petitioners, and the witnesses already examined have implicated the accused/petitioners, alleging their involvement in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the case is registered under Section 376(D) of the IPC, which is a heinous offence, and therefore, the petitioners may not be released at this stage merely on the basis of their length of detention. He further contended that continued custodial detention may be necessary and that there is a likelihood of hampering or tampering with the witnesses yet to be examined. Accordingly, at this stage, he vehemently opposed the release of the accused/petitioners on bail. 7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the scanned copy of the TCR, including the evidence and statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation. It is a fact that the evidence of the informant and the victim has already been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, along with that of four other prosecution witnesses. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the examination of the vital witnesses and the length of detention already Page No.# 4/4 undergone by the accused/petitioners, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the accused/petitioner does not seem necessary in this case. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mushalpur, Baksa, the accused/petitioners, namely, Dipak Basumatary and Bikram Basumatary, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Mushalpur, Baksa as and when the date is fixed; (ii) that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mushalpur, Baksa, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant