Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010227722025 2025:GAU-AS:14183 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3361/2025 PAPU SAIKIA AND ANR SON OF KHIRESHWAR SAIKIA R/O VILL- KAKOI RAJGARH,P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2: SRI KRISHNA KANTA BORUAH SON OF NANDA BARUAH R/O VILL- KAKOI RAJGARH P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M HOQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 24.10.2025 Heard Mr. M. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This bail application has been filed by the petitioners namely, (i) Papu Saikia and (ii) Krishna Kanta Boruah under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.298/2025 under Sections 329(3)/351(2) (3)/74/115(2)/117(2)/309(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to G.R., Case No.815/2025). 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 04.09.2025, complainant Shri Dulal Dutta lodged an FIR before North Lakhimpur PS against accused persons, namely Shri Papu Saikia, Shri Tinku Baruah, Shri Krishna Kanta Baruah, Shri Nipu Saikia, Smt. Moina Saikia and Smt. Popi Saikia alleging that on 02.09.2025, a protest was organized near Rajgarh Bangali village, Railway crossing under North Lakhimpur by Bir Lachit Sena and Asomiya Yuva Manch against illegal liquor, in which the complainant was not involved, and following this, accused Shri Papu Saikia threatened the complainant over phone on 02.09.2025 at 8.50 PM and again on 03.09.2025 at 8.07 AM warning him of the consequences for campaigning against illegal liquor. Later, at 8.20 PM, accused Papu Saikia Tinku Baruah arrived in a white Baleno vehicle bearing registration No.AS.07.V-6110, entered into the complainant's courtyard, outraged the modesty of the complainant's sister-in-law, Smt. Putuli Dutta by pushing and dragging her, and assaulted the complainant's elder brother, Biren Dutta, with slaps and punches. Accused Papu Saikia, Tinku Baruah and Krishna Kanta Baruah threatened to burn the house and kill Dulal Dutta by cutting him into pieces. When the complainant came out, they attacked him with a rod causing severe injuries on his right hand and leg, and accused Krishna Kanta Baruah snatched Rs. 3000/- from him. Local people restrained accused Papu Saikia, Tinku Baruah and Krishna Kanta Baruah, but accused Kishna Kanta Baruah managed to escape. Page No.# 3/4 Subsequently, other accused persons arrived with a group of people, created disturbance, and tried to free the restrained accused, but failed. Accused Smt. Moina Saikia brought a spare key of the Bolero vehicle and handed it over to accused Shri Nipu Saikia, who drove the vehicle away, while the first key remained with the complainant. The accused had also brought petrol and sharp weapons, but could not use them due to the villagers' intervention. Accused Smt. Popi Saikia dragged the complainant's niece, Bhagyashri Dutta by holding her hair from the house to the courtyard. 4. It is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that charge-sheet in this case being C.S. No.287/2025 dated 14.10.2025 has already been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 22.09.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.147/2025, whereby a bail application filed on behalf of the present petitioners was rejected. At para 10 of the said order the learned Court below has referred to the injury report, which reveals that the victim sustained injury on right ankle with swelling and little amount of bleeding of the size 0.5x 0.3 x 0.3 cm, which was simple in nature and caused by blunt object. 6. As the nature of injuries is simple and the petitioners have already spent 49 days behind the bars, there is no purpose to be served by their continued detention. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer for bail is allowed. Page No.# 4/4 8. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in connection with the aforementioned case. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused petitioners – (1) shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the evidence of the case; and (2) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 9. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant