Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010266012025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3898/2025 MAINUDDIN AHMED AND ANR S/O- HABIBUR RAHMAN R/O- N. C. NO. 3, NANGLICHAR P/S - SHYAMPURDIST - DARRANG ASSAM 2: JAINAL ABEDIN S/O ALABAKS MUNCHI R/O MOWAMARI CHAPARI P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 15-12-2025 Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. U. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who was arrested in connection with Shyampur P.S. Case No. 20/2025 under Sections 109/117(2)/118(2)/191(2)/191(3) / 329(3) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary is placed before the Court. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel that it is a fact that there was an altercation/quarrel between two parties on some landed property wherein the person from both the groups sustained injury and the wife of one of the accused has also lodged cross case against the informant side but they not sustained any such injury as described in the FIR. 5. More so, from the report of the IO in both the cases it is seen that all the persons are involved from both the groups in the said fighting/altercation. More so, both the petitioners are in custody for last 48 days and hence, considering the period of detention his prayer may be considered. 6. Mr. Das, learned Addl. PP submitted that the cross case has already been charge-sheeted and from perusal of the case diary of the present case it is seen that two victims sustained grievous injury including one that minor injury. There are sufficient incriminating material against these two petitioners and the witnesses as well as the victim has also uttered the names of these petitioners. Accordingly, he raised objection in granting bail to the petitioners. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case diary it appears that there was quarrel/altercation between two groups wherein some of the persons from both groups sustained injury. So, considering this aspect of the case vis-à-vis the length of detention already undergone by the accused petitioners, I find that custodial interrogation may Page No.# 3/3 not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. 8. In view of the matter, the accused/petitioners, namely, Mainuddin Ahmed and Jainal Abedin, be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand), each only with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Darrang Mangaldai, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case and (ii) that the petitioners 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 9. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. 10. Return the Case Diary herewith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant