Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010006222025 2025:GAU-AS:3832 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/31/2025 HIMANGSHU CHOUDHURY S/O- BIBHU BHUSAN CHOUDHURY, R/O- GOALPARA, P.O. BALADMARI, P.S. GOALPARA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, Pin 783121 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : SAMSUL ALAM HUSSAIN, MR D J HALOI,G BORO Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 01.04.2025 Heard Mr. S. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed for the relaxation/modification of the bail order dated 08.10.2018, passed in Bail Application Case No. 2335/2018 [Himangshu Choudhury vs. The State of Assam], in connection with Special Case No. 2/2017 [arising out of Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016] under Sections 7/13(1)(b)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 120(B)/420/463/468/471/477(A)/201 of the IPC, which is pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant, that the present applicant, along with other co-applicants, had preferred connected bail applications, which were accordingly allowed by the Co-Ordinate Bench vide its order dated 08.10.2018. He further submits that the applicant has been abiding by all the terms and conditions imposed upon him. However, he is facing difficulty in obtaining permission to leave the jurisdiction of Guwahati whenever he needs to visit his parents in Goalpara. While passing the bail order (s) dated 08.10.2018, six conditions were imposed in paragraph No. 6 of the order [i.e., conditions No.6 (a) to 6(f)]. Under condition No. 6(c), the applicants were directed:"They would not leave the territorial limits of the city of Guwahati without the written permission of the Trial Court and without informing the Page No.# 3/4 investigating agency." In this regard, he submits that the applicant is presently residing with his wife at her residence, and they have a baby boy. He is facing difficulties as his parents are aging, and in case of a medical emergency, he needs to rush to Goalpara, making it challenging to obtain prior permission each time. However, he submitted that the applicant is regularly attending trial proceedings before the learned Trial Court. Hence, the applicant has preferred the present petition, praying for the cancellation of bail condition No. 6(c), which was imposed vide order dated 08.10.2018. 4. In this regard, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the applicant can seek permission from the learned Trial Court in compliance with bail condition No. 6(c), as incorporated in the bail order. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, particularly the ground raised by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding his parents' medical emergencies, I find it justified to cancel/modify the bail condition No. 6(c), which was imposed vide order dated 08.10.2018 in Bail Application Case No. 2335/2018. Accordingly, the application stands allowed, and the bail conditions imposed vide order dated 08.10.2018 [Bail Application Case No. 2335/2018] is hereby modified and read as follows: “(a) The applicant 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 to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (b) The applicant would surrender his passport to the Trial Court and will swear affidavit if he has no such passport. Page No.# 4/4 (c) Cancelled/modified. (d). He would report before the Trial Court and the investigating officer once a month, till the investigation in the case is completed in full. (e). He would cooperate with the investigation and would always be available to be interrogated by the investigating agency. (f) Any other condition as the Trial Court may consider to be appropriated can be added if and as and when necessary.” 6. In terms of above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant