Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010169492025 2025:GAU-AS:10362 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2472/2025 DEEPAK SAIKIA S/O- LATE MAHENDRA SAIKIA. R/O- PARALIGURI, KAMPUR, P.S.- KAMPUR, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C K NATH, MR. AJAY SARMA,MR. S MUNIR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 06.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by Page No.# 2/4 the petitioner, namely, Deepak Saikia, who has been detained behind the bars since 16.07.2025 (for the last 21 days)in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 113/2025, under Sections 143/317(4)/49/3(5) of BNS, 2023, read with Sections14/15/16/17 of the Assam Games and Betting Act, 1970. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15.07.2025, one Abdul Kader Sheikh had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Sonapur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that a secret information was received through reliable sources regarding illegal gambling activities being carried on at Club Nirvana Resort, Kumarkuchi, Sonapur and accordingly, a team of police officials was constituted and it conducted search operation in the said resort. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the offence involved in the aforesaid case. 5. He submits that the petitioner was only working as Manager and the articles which are suspected to be used in gambling Games and Betting were seized from the room Nos. 1, 3 and 8 of the first floor of the old building of the Club Nirvana Resort and the said rooms were already allotted to the guests. He submits that after allotment of the rooms to the guests, the resort authorities or the Manager is not liable for any objectionable items seized from the said rooms. 6. He submits that petitioner who is only an employee of the Club Nirvana Resort is in no way involved in the offence alleged under the Assam Games and Betting Act, 1970 as well as under Section 143 of BNS, 2023. 7. He submits that considering the period of detention undergone by the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner, he may be allowed to go on bail. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sarma has produced the Case Diary of Sonapur P.S. Case No. 113/2025. He has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the present petitioner. He also submits that the present petitioner in connivance with other co-accused persons was involved in the offence of subjecting the victim girls to sexual exploitation as well as offences under the Assam Games and Betting Act, 1970. He also submits that the investigation is at a very crucial stage and some of the victim girls are yet to be examined. 9. He also submits that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage would affect the investigation and hence opposes the grant of bail. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary of Sonapur P.S. Case No. 113/2025. 11. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that at this stage, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner regarding his involvement in the offences under Section 143 of BNSS, 2023 in sexual exploitation of girls, who were purportedly employed as dancers in the Club Nirvana Resort. 12. It appears on perusal of the Case Diary that the investigation is pending at a very crucial stage. 13. Considering the above facts, this Court is reluctant to grant bail to the Page No.# 4/4 above-named petitioner at this stage. 14. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is, therefore, rejected. 15. Send back the Case Diary. 16. With the above observations, this case is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant