Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010209712025 2025:GAU-AS:13267 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3030/2025 SRI DEBAJIT SARMA PROPRIETOR OF M/S AESTHETIC CREATIONS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 10, LAKHIMI PATH, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, NABIN NAGAR, P.S - GEETANAGAR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) GUWAHATI, ASSAM -781024 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MS N M SARMA,MR R K DUTTA,MR. INDRAJIT BHUYAN,MR. P SENGUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 25-09-2025 Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sengupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the Page No.# 2/3 accused petitioner, namely Sri Debajit Sarma, respect of Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 188/2025 under Section 108/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Case diary is received. Perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. D. Das that earlier bail application of the present accused petitioner was rejected in BA No.2564/2025 dated 20.08.2025 after perusal of the case diary. But on perusal of the case diary, it was observed that further custodial detention will be required for the purpose of investigation. But till date, the petitioner is in custody for 63 days. Thus the I/O got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the petitioner keeping him in custody. It is further submitted that he is a consultant Architect and several projects were under him and being a permanent resident of his locality, he will extend his cooperation as and when it will be required. He also submits that one of the co-accused also obtained the interim pre-arrest bail from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the case, basically the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, he may be released on bail. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners and on the basis of which, his earlier bail application was also rejected by this Court. He further submits that audio clips and other materials have already been sent for FSL, but the report is still awaited. The I/O has also filed objection, wherein, it is stated that there may not be proper cooperation from the present accused petitioner, if he is allowed to go on bail. It is stated that there is some confusion regarding the statutory period whether it is to be considered as 60 or 90 days. He further submits that considering the incriminating materials found against the petitioner, his further custodial detention may be required for the purpose I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides and also perused the case diary and it is seen that the FSL report is still awaited, which were sent for examination at the initial stage of investigation. But till date, the I/O could not collect the FSL report. It is seen that the accused petitioner is in custody since 63 days and hence, without going into the other merits of the case, I find that the I/O got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused petitioner keeping him in custody for a considerable period. In view of the above, I find that further custodial interrogation may not be required for the Page No.# 3/3 purpose of investigation. However, the petitioner will extend his cooperation as and when it is needed by the I/O. Accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present petitioners. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon, the accused petitioner named above be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magisrate, Bongaigaon without prior permission. In terms of the above, the bail application stands disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant