Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149602025 2025:GAU-AS:9165 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2187/2025 JAGADISH KALITA SON OF LATE PRAFULLA KALITA R/O NALBARI TOWN, WARD NO. 7, SANTIPUR, P.S. NALBARI, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 16.07.2025 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, is preferred by the accused/petitioner, namely, Sri Jagadish Kalita, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 26.06.2025 in connection with Nalbari P. S. Case No. 210/2025, registered under Sections 329(4)/121(2)/132/3(5) of BNS. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS was passed against the present petitioner, as the Second Party, and one Mr. Bijoy Kr. Jain, as the First Party, wherein both parties were prohibited from entering the disputed land until further orders of the Court. 4. He further submits that, in the event of any alleged violation of Section 163 of the BNSS, the appropriate statutory recourse lies under Section 167 of the BNSS. However, without following the due legal procedure, the First Party approached the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari, alleging that the Second Party (i.e., the petitioner) and his son had violated the prohibitory order passed by the learned Magistrate. Pursuant to this, both the petitioner and his son were called to the police station. It is alleged that, during their appearance, while the Officer-in-Charge of Nalbari Police Station [informant] was discharging his official duties, the petitioner instigated his son to assault the said officer. Page No.# 3/4 However, apart from this allegation of instigation, there is no specific allegation of direct assault by the petitioner himself. 5. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proper legal procedure was not followed, as the First Party approached the S.P., Nalbari directly, resulting in the police summoning the petitioner and his son. The petitioner, aged 64 years and formerly serving as a principal of a Junior College, has been in custody for the past 21 days and thus, the Investigating Officer got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him keeping in custody. He further submits that the accused/petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the I.O in the further course of investigation, if granted the privilege of regular bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Borthakur, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that there is a clear allegation against the accused/petitioner of having instigated his son to assault the Officer-in-Charge of Nalbari Police Station [informant]. As per the Medical Report, the informant sustained minor injuries due to the assault by the co-accused (i.e., the petitioner's son). Accordingly, he opposes the prayer for bail at this stage. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, the nature of the allegations, and the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, i.e., 21 days, this Court is of the view that the IO got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner while keeping him in custody. As such, further custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary at this stage. 8. 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 Page No.# 4/4 satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, the accused/petitioner, namely, Sri Jagadish Kalita, 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, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant