Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010239202025 2025:GAU-AS:15152 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3528/2025 BUBUL GAYARI SON OF LATE. RAMESWAR GAYARI RESIDENT OF VILL- KOHORA,P.O.- SARUPETA P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI, DISTRICT - BAJALI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : H CHOUDHURY, MR. M KASHYAP,MR. D THAOSEN,MR D KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 10.11.2025 Heard Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant Page No.# 2/3 of bail to the accused-applicant in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 51/2025, registered under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with added Section 61(2) (a) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of the case as has been narrated in the FIR dated 16.09.2025 is that the accused-applicant, in conspiracy with the co-accused, namely, one Syeda Jurima Ahmeda had accepted bribe of Rs. 15,000/-(Fifteen Thousand) from the complainant. It was also alleged in the FIR that the accused-applicant was caught red handed by way of a trap by the police team of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam. 4. After receipt of the FIR, the police have filed the ACB P.S. Case No. 51/2025, under the aforementioned sections. The accused-applicant was arrested on 17.09.2025 and since then he is inside the jail custody. 5. The learned accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant was, in fact, no way connected in taking any bribe and he was not involved in any conspiracy to demand bribe from the complainant. The learned counsel further submits that the accused- applicant is a Peon in the office of the Inspector of Drugs, Barpeta, Assam and he was requested by the aforesaid co-accused to accept the money on behalf of her, which was supposedly to be given by the complainant. The learned counsel submits that the main co-accused i.e. Smti Syed Jurima Ahmeda had already been granted bail by the Special Judge, Assam, vide it’s order dated 03.11.2025. The learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant has already spent more than 53 days inside the judicial custody and therefore, his further custodial detention may not be required in the instant case. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the accused-applicant prays for release of the accused-applicant. 6. The learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that the accused-applicant was caught red handed while accepting bribe by the police team of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Assam, and there are incriminating materials against the accused-applicant in the Case Diary. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant may Page No.# 3/3 not be granted bail at this stage. 7. This Court has gone through the Case Diary submitted before this Court as well as heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. The Case Diary reveals that the statements of the informant, the accused-applicant as well as other witnesses have already been recorded by the Investigating Authority. It is also seen that the investigation is already at the verge of completion. Therefore, taking into account the fact that the alleged main co-accused, i.e. Smti Syed Jurima Ahmeda, in the instant case, has already been granted bail and the accused-applicant has spent more than 53 days in jail custody, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein, the accused-applicant should be granted bail. Accordingly, the accused-applicant is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing a bail-bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, subject to the following conditions: - (1) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for and fully co-operate in the investigation of the case. (2) The accused-applicant shall not hamper the investigation nor tamper with any evidence or influence any witnesses connected with the case. 9. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant Bail Application is disposed of as allowed. Case Diary so received be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant