Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010225882025 2025:GAU-AS:13843 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3262/2025 RATUL DEKA S/O- SRI BHUBANESWAR DEKA, R/O- VILL- PALARA, NEAR GORU BAZAR, SIVA MANDIR, PO- KHUDRA DIMU, PS KAMALPUR, KAMRUP (R) , ASSAM, PIN- 781382 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. P K DAS,MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16.10.2025 Heard Mr. A. Chaudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state respondent. 2. The accused petitioner, namely Ratul Deka, seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No.748/2025 under Section 61(2)/305(e)/308(4) of BNSS, 2023. The accused petitioner was arrested in this case on 06.09.2025 and stated to have completed 41 days in the custody and he was taken into police remand for 2 days and custodially examined. 3. The allegation in the FIR dated 05.09.2025 is that he has received a telephone call from the unknown number about a complaint regarding him in the CM Vigilance cell and asked for Rs.2.5 Lakhs to settle the same. Pursuant thereof, a complaint was lodged, and then the present accused was apprehended. Undoubtedly, the nature of the allegation is serious having a bearing on public administration. 4. Apart from the issue of length of detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there has not been proper compliance with Section 35(3) of the BNSS (corresponding to 41(a) of the Cr.P.C). Page No.# 3/5 5. My attention has been drawn to the grounds of arrest mentioned in the forwarding report, one of which is that he may be involved in other cases. Drawing attention to the checklist in this regard, it is submitted that the details regarding such satisfaction are not recorded. It is also submitted that in the remand order of the learned JMFC, the satisfaction regarding Section 35(3) of BNSS has not been made as required by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and Anr, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577. The principles have been summarized in paragraph 100 of the said order. The petitioner’s counsel also relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Bail Application No.2768/2025 (Arihant Jain and Anr Vs. The State of Assam), in which these aspects were gone into. Paragraph 23 of the said judgment to which reference is made by the petitioner is reproduced herein below:- “23. The Apex Court has in the above referred cases deprecated the practice of the arresting authority of mechanically reproducing the conditions mentioned in the statute regarding satisfaction of the arresting authority for necessitating the arrest. By merely stating that arrest of the petitioners are necessary for preventing them to temper and hamper the course of investigation and to prevent them from fleeing the course of justice is not sufficient, unless the Investigating Officer mentions the facts which led him to believe that the petitioners may flee the course of justice or may hamper the investigation or may threaten the witnesses.” 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor places the case diary Page No.# 4/5 before this court. On perusing the material, I find force in the contention of the petitioner’s counsel regarding non-compliance or defective compliance with the provision of Section 35(3) of BNSS. The accused is also stated to have been suspended in service. 7. Considering the above aspect regarding the purported non- compliance of Section 35(3) of BNSS; the suspension of the present accused in service and also the progress of investigation - perhaps the accused, who has completed 41 days of detention, can be released on bail. Accordingly, the accused named above, is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned court of CJM, Kamrup (M) and subjects to the conditions that:- (i) That the accused petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; (ii) That the accused petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; and (iii) That the accused petitioner shall not misuse his liberty to commit any illegal activity or offences. (iv) The accused petitioner shall not try to influence or threaten witnesses. 8. In case of violation of any or more conditions, the IO will be at liberty to move an appropriate application through the prosecution for cancellation of bail. 9. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. Page No.# 5/5 Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant