Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010000812025 2025:GAU-AS:526 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./26/2025 BHARAT CHETRY S/O LATE KRISHNA BAHADUR BOSNET, R/O KURUAPATHAR, P.S.-HELEM, DIST- BISWANATH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S R RABHA, MR S BORTHAKUR,T CHAKMA,P HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. B J TALUKDAR (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 20.01.2025 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned counsel for the informant. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Helem P.S. Case No. 94/2024, under Section 143(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is behind the bar since 15.12.2024 and thus the I.O. got sufficient time for his custodial interrogation. More so, from the plain reading of the F.I.R. itself, it is seen that the girl was sent with 2 (two) persons to Arunachal Pradesh by taking money by her parents. The other co-accused person, in whose car the girl was taken, has already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court below and accordingly, he submitted that considering the length of detention, the present accused/petitioner may be released on bail as further custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may not be required. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in the further investigation of this case if he is granted with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submitted in this regard that from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that the present accused/petitioner also took Rs. 14,000/- from the said people from Arunachal Pradesh, though he gave only Rs. 2,000/- to the parents of the victim girl. Accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the present petitioner at this stage. He further submitted that subsequently Section 111(3) of BNS has already been added considering it Page No.# 3/4 to be an organized crime. 6. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the informant, also submitted in this regard that the girl is still in the stage of trauma and after her recovery, she refused to go to her own house and she is still in the custody of the children home. Accordingly, he submitted that there may be threat from the accused/petitioner side if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 7. Considering the entire submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Case Diary. It is a fact that the girl was taken by the present accused/petitioner along with one co-accused person from the custody of the informant, but there is no mention in the F.I.R. or there is no material to show that the girl was taken without informing the parents. Rather, from the Case Diary, it reveals that the girl was taken for house keeping with the consent of her parents. Thus, considering this aspect of the case, viz-a-viz the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further custodial detention of the present accused/petitioner may not be required for the interest of investigation. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Gohpur, the accused/petitioner, namely, Bharat Chetry, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by Page No.# 4/4 the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner 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; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned SDJM, Gohpur, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 10. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant