Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010019522025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./268/2025 SADEK ALI @ SAJID ALI SON OF MIARUDDIN AHMED, RESIDENT OF NO 3, MADHAV GOHAIN , P.S DALGAON, DISTRICT DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. B RAHMAN,MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. M S HUSSAIN,MR. V A CHOWDHURY,MR. D GAGAI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. A. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sadek Ali @ Sajid Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 20.01.2025 (for last 51 days) in connection with Tezpur P. S. Case No.44/2025 under Section 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 10(2) of the Assam Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2024. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 19.01.2025, one Rupam Kumar Bora, Principal of Govt. Girls Higher Secondary and MP School, Tezpur had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Tezpur Police Station inter-alia, alleging that on 19.01.2025, while conducting TET cum recruitment examination in their school, a complaint was received that one candidate is appearing in the examination with fake identity card. 4. On tracking the candidate, it was found that it was the petitioner with Roll No. 901340, which was found to be fake. 5. It was alleged that the petitioner has resorted to malpractice in the examination and accordingly, Tezpur P.S. Case No.44/2025 was registered. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone detention for last 51 days and he also did not appear in the said examination and considering the period of detention, he prays that the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that sufficient incriminating materials are there in the case diary. He has produced the case diary of Tezpur P.S. Case No.44/2025. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. Page No.# 3/3 9. Though, there are incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the case diary, however, considering the progress of the investigation as well as considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of considered opinion that if the petitioner cooperates in the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 10. In view of above, the above-mentioned petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer. ii. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. 11. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. 12. Send back the case diary JUDGE Comparing Assistant