Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010187722025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2767/2025 KANKAN DAS ALIAS KANKAN MADAHI S/O PARAMA MADAHI R/O VILL- TARABARI, P.S. SIMLA DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM PRESENT ADDRESS C/O HARIHAR SINGHA VILL- PATACHARKUCHI DIST. BAJALI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Kankan Das Alias Kankan Madahi, who is detained behind the bars since 31.05.2025 in connection with Mushalpur P. S. Case No. 38/2025 under Sections 316(5)/3(5) of BNS read with Section 66C/66D of the IT Act. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 16.05.2025, one Sri Pranab Bayan had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Mushalpur police station, naming 3(three) accused persons therein, inter-alia, alleging that the accused No. 1 named in the FIR (Sri Kankan Das) had introduced himself to the informant as a bank employee and had opened a current account in the name of the informant and assured him to produce a business loan. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 90 days and in this case the maximum period of detention which statute describes undVer Section 487 of BNSS, 2023, hence, she prays that the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 90 days and the charge sheet has not been filed. 6. He also submits that though the petitioner was arrested on 31.05.2025, however, he was forwarded to judicial custody on 01.06.20025 and, therefore, today is the 89th day of his detention. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides. 8. On perusal of the case diary it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for Page No.# 3/3 the last 89 days, his further custodial detention does not appear to be necessary if he continues to co-operate in the investigation. 9. In view of the above, the above-mentioned petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer. 10. This bail application is, accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant