Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010212572025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3086/2025 AMINUL ISLAM SON OF LATE SAKAT ALI MONDAL, PARMANENT RESIDENT OF COLLEGE ROAD, BIDYAPARA UNDER DHUBRI ,ASSAM, AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 98, BHETAPARA ROAD, HATIGAON, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K BHATTACHARYYA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 14-10-2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 2/3 State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 23.07.2025 in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 188/2025 u/s 108/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary not received. 4. However, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya that there was a mis- communication of the number of the Case Diary and for which the Case Diary could not be received. 5. In that context Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the accused is in custody since last 82 days and hence considering his length of detention the prayer could be considered. He further submitted that the IO got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner in custody and hence further custodial detention may not be required for the purpose of investigation. Mr. Bhattacharya also submitted that one of the co-accused has also been granted bail considering the length of detention. 6. Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection submitting that considering the nature of the offence, the prayer may not be considered and investigation is still under process. However, he submitted that the accused/petitioner is in custody for quite a considerable period. 7. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, without going into detail of merit of the case, only considering the length of detention, more so considering the fact that the IO got sufficient opportunity for interrogation of the accused/petitioner in custody, I find that further custodial detention may not be required for further investigation. Page No.# 3/3 8. Considering the entire circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the other co-accused person already being released on bail and considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further custodial detention may not be necessary for further investigation of the case. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner is released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Bongaigaon. The accused/petitioner, namely Aminul Islam, 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, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Bongaigaon without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant