Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010159332025 2025:GAU-AS:10929 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2388/2025 DILIP DEKA S/O- LATE HEMCHANDRA DEKA. R/O- FLAT NO.I-3, MIRA RESIDENCY, LALMATI, P.S.- BASISTHA, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V N UPADHYAY, P MOHESWARI,S DAS,MS P MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 18.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. This is an application by which the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Basistha P.S Case No. 343/2025 registered under Section 25(1- Page No.# 2/4 A)/29 Arms Act. 3. The FIR dated 27.06.2025 lodged by the Sub-Inspector of the Basistha Police Station reveals that on an information by the wife of the petitioner that she is being attacked by her husband at her residence, the police party reached the said residence which is located at Flat No. I-3, Mira Residency at Lalmati. On reaching the said location, the police found the victim who stated that she had been subjected to continuous threats by her husband. The police searched the house and in the presence of independent witness arms i.e. 1 (one) pistol, 1 (one) magazine, 11 (eleven) live rounds of ammunition and 1 (one) knife etc. were recovered and were seized. It is also stated in the FIR that the accused was found at the place of occurrence and on interrogation, the accused revealed that he purchased the said pistol from one individual. He however could not place any valid documents in respect of the same. 4. Ms. P. Mishra submits and admits that the petitioner could not produce any valid documents with regard to the pistol and further submits that there was a fight between husband and wife and there was a decision to get separate also. She also submits that the petitioner and his wife used to stay at a different residence at Basistha and that in pursuant to the decision to get separated from each other, the wife of the petitioner took a residence at Lalmati. She also stated that the petitioner and the victim decided later to stay Page No.# 3/4 together and that they went to the house at Lalmati where they had a fight and in pursuant to the same, the victim informed the police and the police came and found the arms in the said residence which according to the counsel appearing for the petitioner is unusual. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been inside the jail for 52 days and that the wife of the petitioner had in fact filed the bail application before the Trial Court and in view of the said facts and the length of detention, the counsel for the petitioner prays bail for the petitioner. 5. Ms. N. Das however submits on perusal of the case diary that the victim in her statement had stated that there was a fight and the petitioner tried to scare her by showing the knife and that the victim informed the police and the police came and recovered the arms from the said place. She also has placed the statement of the accused who had admitted that there was no documents with regard to the weapons that were seized and that he tried to scare her with the knife. 6. I have heard the counsels and have perused the case dairy. 7. It is noticed that the petitioner and his wife had a fight in the other residence that was allegedly taken by the wife of the petitioner and in process of the said fight, the petitioner is said to have threatened her with the firearm which is negated by the statement of the victim before the police who Page No.# 4/4 stated that the petitioner had threatened her with the knife. Further, it is admitted by the petitioner that there are no documents in relation to the arms that were seized from the place of his wife. It is also noticed that the petitioner has been inside the jail for more than 50 days and the case dairy shows that the investigation has reached quite an extent and is in the verge of completion. 8. It is found that the arms were not seized from the place of the petitioner but from the place which was allegedly taken by the petitioner’s wife which raises doubt about the ownership of the said arms. As such, this Court is of the opinion to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with two (2) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Kamrup(M) under the following conditions:- 1) He will co-operate with the investigation and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. 2) He will not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses who are connected to the case. 3) He will not leave the jurisdiction of CJM, Kamrup(M) without the permission of the said authority. 9. The petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant