Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010202132025 2025:GAU-AS:12022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2934/2025 MRIDUPAVAN SAIKIA ALIAS MRIDU PAVAN SAIKIA SON OF LATE MAHESH SAIKIA R/O DALGAON TOWN, P.S. DALGAON, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 04.09.2025 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the Page No.# 2/4 petitioner, viz., Mridupavan Saikia @ Mridu Pavan Saikia has prayed for bail in connection with Dalgaon P.S. Case No.134/2025 registered under Sections 329(3)/351(3)/326(g) of the BNS, 2023. The F.I.R. dated 17.08.2025 lodged by the aunt of the petitioner reveals that on 16.08.2025 at around 11:30 p.m. the petitioner armed with weapons entered her residence and threatened to kill her and tried to assault her. It is further stated that the petitioner forced her to open the door and when she did not open the door he threatened that he would set fire and after some time the petitioner set the fire and fled away from the place of occurrence. Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts were incorrectly stated in the said ejahar by the informant and to substantiate the said argument he placed the forwarding report where it is stated that the petitioner had set fire on the store house of the complainant which is adjacent to the dwelling house. He further submits that the informant also did not state in the F.I.R. that she is the aunt of the accused person i.e. the petitioner. Mr. Mahajan also submits that a dispute regarding the demarcation of the land was going on between the petitioner and the victim and he also submits that on the same day before 11:30 p.m. there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the informant as stated in para 9 of the petition and the matter was informed by the wife of the petitioner to the Dalgaon Police Station but the same was registered as a Non-F.I.R. case. He also submits that in the F.I.R. lodged by the wife of the petitioner the entire story was narrated where it is stated that the informant had kept some useless woods and bamboos on her husband’s land by Page No.# 3/4 erecting temporary shed and that when the petitioner’s husband and her child were sleeping in their room the informant i.e. Ms. Krishna Saikia had set the fire on those useless woods and when there was a quarrel the informant threatened to lodge the case against the petitioner. Mr. Mahajan further submits that the petitioner has been diagnosed with HIV positive as he has annexed the medical certificate in the petition at page 33. On these grounds, Mr. Mahajan prays that the petitioner may be released on bail in connection with the present case. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., however, objects to the grant of bail on the ground that it is clearly written in the F.I.R. that the petitioner had set fire on the house of the victim and that although it is said that he had set fire in the store house but the same being adjacent to the house of the victim, he submits that it is almost like setting fire on her house. He also submits that there are property dispute amongst the parties but the same cannot be a reason for the instant F.I.R. and as such he has objected to the grant of bail and he has prayed that the Case Diary may be called for. Upon consideration of the submissions made at the Bar, this Court observes the following. There is apparent discrepancy in the fact narrated by the informant that the fire was set in her residential house inasmuch as in the forwarding report it is clearly stated that fire was set in the store house and further in the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner’s wife shows that the fire that was set on the store house was standing in the land of the petitioner’s husband and Page No.# 4/4 it is also reflected that the petitioner has been infected with HIV which is reflected in the Laboratory Report of HCTS Facilities (SA-ICTC) wherein it is indicated that the “Specimen is positive for HIV-1 antibodies” by giving a tick mark. It is also reflected that even the wife of the petitioner is an HIV patient as is reflected from the Patient Booklet annexed with the petition. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai on the following conditions :- (1) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. and/or Trial Court, as the case may be, as and when called for. (2) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not influence the witnesses connected with the case. (3) That the petitioner shall not leave the place of his residence without permission of the Investigating Officer. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant