Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010177152025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1903/2025 DR SIMANTA JYOTI TAYE S/O- LATE M.C TAYE 2: SMTI MANASHI BARUAH TAYE WIFE OF DR SIMANTA JYOTI TAYE BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMNAGAR DIPLING KAKOTIBARI CHARAIDEO ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:MISS X (VICTIM) DAUGHTER OF SRI MONUJ GOHAINALIAS MONUJ GOSAIN RESIDENT OF 01 NO. KACHAMARI GAON P.S- MORAN DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786613 3:SRI BIJOY KHARIA (INFORMANT) SON OF LATE NANDU KHARIA RESIDENT OF VILL - NO. 2 KACHAMARI P.O AND P.S- MORAN DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN786613. ------------ Advocate for : MR. J HATIMURIA Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court on 08.08.2025 and in pursuant to the directions of this Court, they have appeared before the Investigating Officer and have co-operated in the investigation. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Moran P.S. Case No. 75/2025 and has submitted that the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements have also been recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. He, however, submits that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner No. 1, namely, Dr. Simanta Jyoti Taye of having been involved in the falsification of records as well as the offence alleged in this case. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of Moran P.S. Case No. 75/2025. 5. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioners have complied with the directions of this Court and have co-operated in the investigation. It also appears that there is no indication in the case diary that Page No.# 3/3 the petitioners have not co-operated in the investigation. 6. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary if they co- operate in the investigation. Hence, the interim bail granted to both the petitioners by order dated 08.08.2025 is hereby made absolute with condition Nos. 1 and 2 attached to the said order remaining intact. 7. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant