Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010132192025 2025:GAU-AS:9429 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1999/2025 RAHMAN MALLIK S/O BAREK MALLIK VILL- KALDI PATHER (KALDI PATHAR) P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MISS. S PARBIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 23-07-2025 Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 25.05.2025 in connection with Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 65/2025 u/s 331(4)/305/317(2) of BNS. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and is no way connected in the alleged offence. It is a fact that he was driving a vehicle of one of the co-accused and which was seized by police in connection with this case. Subsequently, he got arrested in this case and since last 59 days he is in custody. Thus, the police got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him keeping him in custody and hence further custodial interrogation may not be required for interest of the investigation. He further submitted that the other offences are of 60 days only except Section 331(4) of BNSS which relates to house trespass and the said section does not attracts against the present petitioner. Further, he is ready and willing to cooperate with the I/O in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the materials available in the Case Diary it is seen that many persons are involved in the alleged offence and initially one Jahangir Ali and Jaherul were arrested and thereafter several persons were arrested in connection with the case wherefrom a considerable amount of money was recovered which were utilized by the accused/persons by purchasing land, car etc. He further submitted some incriminating materials against the present petitioner is found who was helping some of the co-accused/person in Page No.# 3/4 purchasing vehicles out of the stolen money. Mr. Borthakur accordingly raised objection and submitted that this bail petition may not be considered at this stage. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and considering the materials available in the Case Diary and the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. Thus without going into the detail of the merit of the case, considering the length of detention undergone by the present petitioner, I find it a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the present petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Barpeta. The accused/petitioner, namely, Rahman Mallik be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten 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 CJM, Barpeta without prior permission. Page No.# 4/4 The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant