Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010242382025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3568/2025 VICTOR DAS S/O LT. KUMUD DAS R/O DADARA, P.O. HAJO, PS HAJO, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN,MR P SONOWAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 14.11.2025 Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Azara P.S. Case No. 142/2025 under Sections 191(2)/ 190/ 296/ 324(5)/ 109(1)/ 132 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 3 of PDPP Act, added Sections 52/ 54/ 57 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. It is seen from the record that the accused applicant was released on bail in connection with Fatasil Page No.# 2/3 Ambari P.S. Case No. 137/2025, however, the accused applicant was taken into custody on the same date from the court premises in connection with Azara P.S. Case No. 142/2025. 4. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the learned trial court was neither intimated nor any permission was taken by the arresting authority for arrest of the accused in connection with Azara P.S. Case No. 142/2025. In view of aforesaid reason, the leaned counsel for the accused applicant submits that as per the settled laws of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, the accused applicant could not have been arrested in a different case after he was allowed to go on bail in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 137 of 23025 without intimating the court. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that this court can grant the bail to the accused applicant as per the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well the Hon’ble High Court. 5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused applicant has referred to the case of Uday Chand & Ors Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, Jammu & Kashmir, reported in 1981 Supreme (SC) 166, wherein it has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that once a bail has been granted in favour of an accused and the authorities still wanted to arrest him in connection with another case, the fact has to be intimated/ apprised to the concerned court before taking the person in custody. 6. In another case, namely Kamal Dutta Vs. Union of India, reported in 2015 (1) GLT 517, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court while relying on the case of Udai Chand (Supra) has held that the arrest of an accused in different case from outside the court where he was granted bail without disclosing to the court about the need to arrest him in another case is wholly unacceptable. 7. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that in the instant case also, the accused applicant was arrested from the court premises while he was allowed to go on bail in another case. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein this court should allow the accused applicant to go on bail on the similar ground. 8. Mr. KK Parasar, learned APP has submitted that the case diaries related to Fatasil Ambari P.S. Page No.# 3/3 Case No. 137/2025 and Azara P.S. Case No. 142/2025 are before this court and he fairly submits that there is no prior intimation to the court for requirement of the accused in another case could be seen from the materials available in the case diary. 9. This court has gone through the case diaries produced by the learned APP and heard the submissions of the learned respective counsel appearing for the parties and after due consideration, this court is of the opinion that as per the settled proposition of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the accused should get the benefit of the aforesaid proposition of law and therefore, it is directed that the accused applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on furnishing a bail bond of Rupees 30,000/- (Rupees thirty Thousand) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati subject to following conditions: (i) That the accused/applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I.O. of the case as and when called for; (ii) That the accused/applicant shall not hamper and temper with the evidence of the case in any manner; (iii) That the accused applicant shall not indulge in any activities of like nature; 10. With the above, the instant Bail Application stands disposed of. 11. Case diaries be sent back forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant