Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010200782025 2025:GAU-AS:12805 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2953/2025 SRI LAKHESWAR DAS SON OF LATE HARICHARAN DAS, VILLAGE BONGAON, P.S. BARAMA, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, D GOSWAMI,MS. U BHATTACHARYYA,MS N DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 17.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been Page No.# 2/4 filed by the accused petitioner, namely, Lakheswar Das, who has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Nalbari PS Case No.223/2025 under Sections 61(2)/336(3)/340(2) of BNS 2023. 3. The case arose out of an ejahar dated 16.07.2025, lodged by learned DFO, Chirang Division, Kajalgaon with the allegation that some people had come to the said office to join with fake appointment letters and the said letters were detained and during preliminary enquiry, it came to be known that one racket is behind these activities. One person by the name, Sushanka Das of Nalbari has been named in the ejahar. 4. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly drawn my attention to the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by this Court, whereby the earlier bail petition of the accused was rejected upon perusal of the case diary. 5. Upon perusing the said order, I find that the bail was rejected on the basis of continuing investigation and adverse materials revealed by the investigation till that stage. 6. Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that case diary has been received and placed before the Court. 7. It is further submitted that last endorsement of investigation was of 21.07.2025. Thus, I find that there has been no further investigation after the date of rejection on 20.08.2025. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Page No.# 3/4 wife of the petitioner is unwell and suffering from mental illness and drawn my attention to the annexed documents. It is also submitted that the applicable statutory period considering the penal provisions given at this stage, would be 60 days, and that the petitioner has been in pre-trial detention for about 58 days till now. 9. Undoubtedly, the investigation has revealed incriminating materials against the present accused seeking bail and which has already been noticed in the earlier order rejecting the bail. However, since I have not seen any further investigation after the last date; keeping in mind the length of detention; the projected illness of the wife of the accused – I am of the considered view that despite the adverse materials, the accused can be allowed to go on bail at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the above-named accused petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned learned court with following conditions: (i) That the accused shall not abscond; (ii) That the accused shall co-operate with the remaining investigation and be available for trial, if and when it commences; (iii) That the accused shall not try to influence any witnesses; (iv) That the accused shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. Page No.# 4/4 11. Violation of bail conditions might entail cancellation of the bail. 12. Return back the case diary. 13. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant