Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010264762024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3818/2024 ABHIJIT DAS S/O SRI GOPAL DAS R/O VILL- SIMLAGURI NEAR SIMLAGURI L.P. SCHOOL, P.S. HOWLY DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM PIN-781313 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN,MR. J N SUWAI,MR P SONOWAL,MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 03.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abhijit Das, who has been detained behind the bars since Page No.# 2/4 28.11.2024 in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 1255/2024 under Sections 117(2)/109/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 22.11.2024, one Bhanita Baishya had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Dispur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that her son Biman Jyoti Baishya, aged about 21 years went to visit “Rash Mela” at Japorigog on 21.11.2024 and in that “mela” he was seen with some of his friends, namely, Nayan Das, Sopa, Ujjal, Lalu, Abhi (present petitioner) and others. It is stated in the FIR that the one Ujjal brought the son of the informant in a critical condition to his house and informed the informant that he met with an accident. Later on, the son of the informant was admitted in the hospital and at the time of lodging of the FIR, he was being treated on ventilation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the meanwhile, on 27.11.2024, the son of the informant has expired in hospital. He has submitted that though in the FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioner and some of his friends have beaten up the son of the informant. However, in fact, the allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR is only on the basis of suspicion and same is not true. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 36 days and considering his period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail as his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Dispur P.S. Case No. 1255/2024 and has submitted that though Page No.# 3/4 the post-mortem examination report is available which shows that the petitioner sustained injuries on head and other parts of body. However, the cause of death is kept pending in the post-mortem examination report as the report of Toxicology report from Forensic Science Laboratory has not been received. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, in the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has examined the relevant witnesses and at least three of them have implicated the petitioner of having assaulted the deceased. Hence, he opposes the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the case diary of Dispur P.S. Case No. 1255/2024. 8. Though, the cause of death is not reflected in the post-mortem examination report, however, there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary. However, it also appears that apart from collection of the toxicological report from Forensic Laboratory, the investigation has fairly progressed and if the petitioner co-operates with the Investigating Officer, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of the aforesaid case. 9. In view of above, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons Page No.# 4/4 who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court, (iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) without prior leave of the said Court during the pendency of the investigation of the aforesaid case. 10. With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant