Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010154942025 2025:GAU-AS:10061 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2232/2025 BHADRA KANTA DOLEY S/O- MANGALSINGH DOLEY ASSAM 2: ARJUN DOLEY S/O- MANGALSINGH DOLEY 3: JUNIOR PATIR S/O- DEBORAM PATIR 4: ABI DOLEY S/O- LILA DOLEY 5: RANESH PATIR @RAMEN PATIR S/O- GUNESWAR PATIR 6: BISMO PATIR S/O- KHAGEN PATIR 7: BANI KANTA PATIR S/O- MADHURAM PATIR 8: HARIKRISHNA DOLEY S/O- KAMISON DOLEY 9: RAMCHANDRA PATIR S/O- HARICHAN PATIR 10: PRIYANTH DOLEY S/O- MAHEN DOLEY ALL ARE R/O- VILL-GA DANGOR CHUK P.S- GHILAMORA DIST- LAKHIMPUR Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR B DEORI Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 04.08.2025 Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with Ghilamara P.S. Case No. 21/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 76/2025, under Sections 191(2)/126(2)/132/117(2)/118(2)/351(2)/109 of BNS. Page No.# 3/5 3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. However, admittedly, there was an altercation and quarrel took place between the parties when they tried to settle the matter with the 2 (two) victims and after the incident, the petitioners have surrendered themselves before the police and for last 31 days, they are in custody. Thus, he submitted that the I.O. got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the present petitioners keeping them in custody and hence, considering their length of detention, they may be released on bail. However, they are ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case if they are granted with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner and from the statement made by the victim as well as some of the eye witnesses, it is seen that the present petitioners are involved in the alleged offence. Accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that the bail prayer of the present petitioners may not be considered at this stage. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also considering the other aspects of the case, vis-à-vis the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioners, I am of the view that the I.O. has got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioners Page No.# 4/5 keeping them in custody and hence, I find that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioners may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation and therefore, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused/petitioners. 7. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM(M), Dhakuakhana, the accused/ petitioners, namely, (i) Bhadra Kanta Doley, (ii) Arjun Doley, (iii) Junior Patir, (iv) Abl Doley, (v) Ranesh Patir @ Ramen Patir, (vi) Bismo Patir, (vii) Bani Kanta Patir, (viii) Hari Krishna Doley, (ix) Ramchandra Patir & (x) Priyanth Doley, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (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 him 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 SDJM(M), Dhakuakhana, without prior permission. Page No.# 5/5 8. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 9. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant