Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010141962025 2025:GAU-AS:10976 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2123/2025 SUKUR ALI AND ORS S/O AKRAM ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARKHUTI, PS DIMAKUCHI, DIST UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM 2: TAHER ALI S/O SALIM ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARKHUTI PS DIMAKUCHI DIST UDALGURI BTR ASSAM 3: MOHIBUL ISLAM S/O RAHAM ALI RESIDNET OF SUHABIL SALANI PALHAJI PS BARPETA DIST BARPETA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : R L CHUTIA, MR. I CHOUDHURY,M INGTI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 19-08-2025 Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who were arrested in connection with Sessions Case (Type-II) No. 17/2025 corresponding to Paneri P.S. Case No. 8/2025 under Sections 305(e)/317(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri. 3. Scanned copy of the record has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel that the petitioners are in custody since the month of February, 2025. The case has already been charge sheeted and 3 (three) witnesses have also been examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that all the petitioners are permanent resident of the locality and hence, there is no question of absconding of the petitioners. Rather, they will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date the case is fixed and will contest the case accordingly. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel further submitted that there is no compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, while arresting the petitioners and forwarding them to judicial custody. He further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioners and they were Page No.# 3/4 only shown arrested in the present case and considering their length of detention of the petitioners, their prayer for bail may be considered. That apart, Section 305(e) also do not attract against the present petitioners. 6. In this regard, Mr. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners and 3 (three) witnesses have already been examined and thus, the trial of the case is going on in good pace and hence, he raised objection and submitted that bail prayer of the petitioners may not be considered at this stage. More so, the petitioners are habitual offenders and the possibility of absconding also cannot be denied at this stage. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and considering all the aspects of the case including the examination of 3 (three) witness, I find that further custodial detention of the petitioners are not required for the purpose of trial of the case. 8. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Sukur Ali; (ii) Taher Ali and (iii) Mohibul Islam, be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each, only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Session Judge, Udalguri, subject to the following conditions:- (i) 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (ii) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Page No.# 4/4 Session Judge, Udalguri, without prior permission. 9. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant