Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010231212025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3389/2025 PARAMESWAR DEKA SON OF JAGADISH DEKA, RESIDENT OF VILL- NIBIRA BONGALBORI, P.O. DHOPGURI,. P.S. KHETRI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A RAHMAN, MS. A KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 04.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent. 2. Case Diary as called for has not been received. Page No.# 2/3 3. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Parameswar Deka under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail in connection with Khetri P.S. Case No.82/2025 registered under Sections 329(4)/296/351(3)/109(1)/118(2) of BNS, 2023. 4. The allegations as reflected in the FIR that on 04/09/2025 at about 11:15 PM a quarrel took place between her son Mantu Deka and one alleged person Sri Parameswar Deka on village road due to some issues and the complainant along with her family members broke the quarrel and brought her son to their home. After some time at about 11:40 PM, the same alleged person namely Sri Parameswar Deka, s/o- Jagadish Deka of village Nibira Bangalbori, P.S.- Khetri, District Kamrup(M) entered into the house of complainant and rebuked her family members with slang languages and also threatened them with dire consequences. While complainants husband Pabin Deka tried to stop the accused, he attacked him by a sharp dau with an attempt to kill him and as a result complainant's husband got cut on his face and sustained grievous injuries. The complainant stated that her husband is now under medical treatment at GMCH.. 5. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is no allegation on the petitioner having caused any grievous injury and it is also brought to notice that a counter FIR was lodged by the petitioner against the present informant. In the meantime, the petitioner has already spent 60 days behind the bar. 6. On considering the nature of allegations, further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. Page No.# 3/3 7. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup in connection with the aforementioned case. 8. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused petitioner – (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