Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010140192025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2105/2025 NABAM NAGA SON OF LATE NABAM TANGIA R/O VILL- TARRASSO, P.O. AND P.S. BALIJAN, DIST. PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, WILDLIFE, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMA, MR. LENTSO,MS G SWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 27.06.2025 Heard Ms. G. Swami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Sarma, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, is preferred by accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 09.05.2025 in connection with BG/WL/02 of 2025-26, registered under Sections 9/ 27/ 29/ 31/ 39/ 39(3) /44 /48(A) / 49(B)/50/51(A) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. 3. It is submitted by Ms. Swami, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present petitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is a fact that he is from Arunachal Pradesh and entered Assam only while chasing his ‘Mithun.’ He was apprehended by the forest staff and has been in custody for the last 50 days. Thus, considering the length of detention already undergone by the petitioner, he may be released on bail. Furthermore, the I.O. got sufficient opportunity for custodial interrogation while keeping the petitioner in custody. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the Offence Report may be called for to know the details of the case. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, Page No.# 3/3 and without going into the detailed merits of the case, and also considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, i.e., 50 days, I am of the view that the I.O. got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner while keeping him in custody. Accordingly, further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner does not seem necessary in this case. 6. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety of like amount, who shall be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biswanath Chariali, Biswanath, the accused/petitioner, namely, Nabam Naga, 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; and (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. 7. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant