Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010025112025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./343/2025 SRI TAJNUR HOQUE AND ANR. S/O ABDUL BAREK ALIAS ABDUL BARIK, RESIDENT OF HARDEMARA, P.O BAHALPUR, P.S CHAPAR, DISTRICT DHUBRI, PIN 783371 2: SRI SANIDUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL BAREK ALIAS ABDUL BARIK RESIDENT OF HARDEMARA P.O BAHALPUR P.S CHAPAR DISTRICT DHUBRI PIN 78337 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, MR S RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 17-03-2025 Heard Mr. A. A. R. Karim, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by accused, 1. Sri Tajnur Hoque, 2. Sri Sanidul Islam, who have been languishing in jail hazot, in connection with Chapar P.S. Case No. 198/2024, under Section 61(2)/ 19(3)/ 132/ 121(2)/ 121(1)/ 109/ 76 of BNS, corresponding to G.R case No. 561/2024, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that, above noted case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one namely, SI (P) Khanjan Jyoti Choudhury, of Chapar Police Station 15.12.2024. The essence of allegation, against the accused persons is that they had attack police personnel which search was conducted in the house of one Ayub Ali, who had kept one hand-made revolver loaded with 5 (five) nos of live round ammunitions, concealed in his house. 4. The learned counsel for the accused submits that both the accused were arrested on 15.12.2024, and since then they are languishing in jail hazot for more than 93 (ninety three) days. 4.1. Further Mr. Karim, learned counsel for the accused submits that after completion of investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet before the learned trial Court on 20.02.2025, which can be interfered from the date put by the Officer-In-Charge in the last part of the charge-sheet though in the Column No. 2, of the said charge-sheet, the I.O. has mentioned the date of filing the charge-sheet as 12.02.2025. And if the date put by the Officer-In-Charge in the last column of the charge-sheet is accepted as the correct date of filing of the charge-sheet, then in the meantime, the statutory period of detention already elapsed and the charge-sheet having not been filed within the stipulated period, and as such the accused herein this case are entitle to default bail. 5. Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also fairly submits that Page No.# 3/3 if 20.02.2025 is taken as the date of filing charge-sheet then before that day the statutory period elapsed. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid factual position this Court is inclined to allow this petition. 7. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, the accused shall be enlarged on bail. 8. In terms of above, this bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant