Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010205132025 2025:GAU-AS:13733 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2978/2025 HAZRAT ALI SON OF SOPIAR ALI R/O VILL- SANTOSHPUR P.O.AND P.S. CHAPAR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783371. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:SAHA ALAM S/OLT.MOKBUL HUSSAINR/O VILL- CHANDARDINGA P.S. CHAPAR DIST. DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : A.ISLAM, A S CHOUDHURY,MR. B.H. TAPADAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 14.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. I.U Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Hazrat Ali, who is stated to have been arrested on 02.07.2025, as per the forwarding report forwarded on 03.07.2025 and presently under pre-trial detention invoking the powers under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 in Chapar P.S Case No. 108/2025 registered under Sections 137(2)/64(1)/75/3(5) BNS, 2023 R/W Section 4/8 of POCSO Act. 2. It is submitted by Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that instructions has been received that service has been completed upon the respondent no.2/informant. However, none appears on his behalf. 3. The accused is stated to have been arrested on 02.07.2025 and has completed more than 100 days in under trial detention. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet which was filed was not placed before the Magistrate and seen by the learned Magistrate within the applicable statutory period of 90 days pertaining to the instant case. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Page No.# 3/5 though the charge-sheet was submitted on the 90th day but it was not placed before the Magistrate and seen by the learned Magistrate on the 91st day as required by law and therefore, the right to default bail had ripened in favour of the accused. 6. In support of the said contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Samsun Noor @ Samsul Noor Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2022 (5) GLT 405. 7. A reference is made to the relevant paragraphs 30 and 38, which was reproduced herein below : 30. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take up the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the submission of the charge-sheet to the Office would be sufficient compliance to Section 173(2) of the Code read with Rule 38 and 69 of the Assam Police Manual Part-IV. As already stated herein above, Section 173(2)(i) mandates that the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station as soon as the investigation is complete shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offence on a police report, in the form prescribed by the State Government. 38. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that submission of the charge sheet before the Office of the Magistrate/the Court would not be sufficient compliance in terms with Section 173(2) of the Code read with Rule 38 and Page No.# 4/5 69 of the Assam Police Manual Part-IV and it is only when the Magistrate/the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence, puts the initials in the charge-sheet as well as in the Register maintained with date and seal of the Magistrate/the Court, it would be that date on which the charge sheet has been deemed to have been submitted to the Magistrate/Court. 8. In the given facts and circumstances, though the charge- sheet is dated 30.09.2025, but in terms of the principles laid down in Samsun Noor @ Samsul Noor (Supra), the contentions of the petitioner’s side about entitlement to default bail is acceptable to this Court. 9. In any case, investigation has been completed and the length of under trial detention so far of 104 days is also significant. 10. In the given facts and circumstances, the above-named accused 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 concerned Court with following conditions: (i) That he shall appear regularly during the trial ; (ii) That he shall not in any manner intimidate, annoy, threaten or harass the informant/victim or other witnesses; (iii) That he shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. 11. Violation of bail conditions might entail cancellation of the Page No.# 5/5 bail. 12. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant