Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010167762025 2025:GAU-AS:9953 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2456/2025 SRI GAJEN BHUYAN S/O- LATE KARUNAKANTA BHUYAN. R/O- KUSHAL NAGAR, BAMUNIMAIDUM, P.S.- CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D GAGAI, MR. M S HUSSAIN,MR. D K BAIDYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 01-08-2025 Heard Mr. D. K. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 175/2025, under Sections 319(2)/308(5)/351(3)/296/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 10.07.2025 and from the forwarding report itself, it is evident that he was not caught red handed by the Investigating Officer and there is no implication against the present accused/petitioner that he extorted or demanded money by putting any vendors in fear of death or causing grievous hurt and thus, Section 308(5) of BNS is also not attracted against the present accused/petitioner. However, he submitted that the present accused/petitioner, along with some of the co-accused persons, formed a committee and collected tax from the small vendors/traders only for the development of the market and without any sort of complaint from any corner, the said committee was running the business for last 9 (nine) years, which even reveals from the statement made in the F.I.R. But, at present, some of the vendors made a complaint against the present petitioner, along with others, only with a mala fide intention and the new committee has already been constituted and they are now collecting the taxes from the said market area. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to extend his co- operation with the I.O. in further investigation of this case and thus, considering his period of detention, he may be enlarged on bail. Page No.# 3/5 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioner is also involved in the alleged offence and he was one of the associates of the prime accused, namely, Biju Das @ Babu, and they engaged themselves in collecting taxes from the vendors illegally, though they were not authorized by any authority to collect the taxes. He further submitted that the present accused/petitioner, along with other associates, used to demand Rs. 500 to Rs. 700 per day illegally from the vendors in the name of running the market. Accordingly, Mr. Borthakur raised objection and submitted that the bail prayer of the present petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Case Diary. It is a fact that the present accused/petitioner was subsequently arrested by police on the basis of statement made by some of the witnesses as well as some of the co-accused persons. But it cannot be denied that the present accused/ petitioner is also associated with the co-accused persons and they used to make some illegal demand from the vendors. In the same time, it also cannot be denied that prior to lodging of the F.I.R., the present petitioner, along with other associates, were running the business of collecting taxes from the vendors in the said market area for last 9 (nine) years without any complaint from any corner. 7. In view of the above aspects of the case and also considering the length of detention already undergone by the present accused/petitioner, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the present accused/petitioner may not be Page No.# 4/5 necessary for the purpose of investigation and therefore, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused/ petitioner. 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 satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Shri Gajen Bhuyan, 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, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 10. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant