Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010201772025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2926/2025 AKASH BILASH GOGOI SON OF SRI PRASANTA GOGOI RESIDENT OF NO. 1 BONDA, GUWAHATI, P.O. BONDA,P.S. PRAGJYOTISHPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781026. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA, MS. K DAS,MR. S DIHINGIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner, namely, Akash Bilash Gogoi, who has been detained behind the bars Page No.# 2/4 since 29.07.2025 in connection with EOB P. S. Case No. 01/2025 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the BNS read with Section 66 of the IT Act. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 17.06.2025 one Jadav Sarkia, Secretary to the Government of the Assam Power Department had lodged an FIR, inter-alia, alleging that one fake work order for supply of water bottles to CM Block was generated at a contract price of Rs. 3,05,000/- per month till the end of the contract. It is also alleged that the work order was issued in the name of one Mriganka Dutta and the present petitioner. It is also alleged in this FIR that the signatures of the informant, namely, Siddhartha Sarkar was also forged in the same document. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since for last 43 days (Since 29.07.2024) and for initial two days, he was also remanded to police custody. 5. He further submits that after remanding on the petitioner to judicial custody, the Investigating Officer has never interrogated him and therefore, he submits that considering the length of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 6. The offences involved in this case contains punishment of imprisonment for not more than seven years and, therefore, there was a requirement of issuance of notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such notice was issued in this case and the reason for not issuing the notice as mentioned in the forwarding report of the Investigating Officer to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at the time of production of the petitioner before the Magistrate does not write down the reasons for the satisfaction arrived at by the Investigating Officer regarding the requirement of arrest of the petitioner in this Page No.# 3/4 case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no reasons, in writing has been stated by the Investigating Officer, in the forwarding report at the time of production of the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) after his arrest, for arriving at a satisfaction regarding existence of any condition as mentioned in Clause (a) to Clause (e) of Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNS, 2023 is there. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 10. She submits that there are sufficient accumulating materials in the case diary regarding the involvement of present petitioner in committing the offence alleged in the FIR. 11. She submits that the investigation is at a decent stage and some more witnesses are to be examined. 12. She also submits that the analysis of all detailed CDR is yet to be done. Therefore, she opposes grant of bail to the present petitioner. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary. 14. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary, however, it also appears that the investigation has fairly progressed and after remand of the petitioner to the judicial custody, he was never interrogated by the Investigating Officer. 15. Considering the above facts as well as also considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner cooperates in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may Page No.# 4/4 not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of EOB P. S. Case No. 01/2025 16. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) with the following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation, ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 17. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant