Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010037632025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./487/2025 SURENDRA KUMAR PANDIT S/O LATE VILASH PANDIT, RESIDENT OF SAWKUCHI,C/O MANESWAR DEKA, CENTRAL JAIL ROAD,PS BASISTHA, 781040, DIST. KAMRUP MASSAM AND ORIGINALLY HAILS FROM JHAKHRA,EAST CHAMPARAN,BIHAR, 845411 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SARMA, MS. B BHUYAN,MS R SAHIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, namely, Surendra Kumar Pandit, who has been detained behind the bars since 04.02.2025 (for the last 36 days) in connection with Dokmoka P. S. Case No. 06/2025 under Sections 61(2) (b)/305/317 (2)/317(5)/323/111(3)/111(4) of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 53 (1)(a) of the Assam Excise Act, 2000. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 02.02.2025, one Partha Pratim Bhattacharya, SI of Police, had lodged an FIR before the Officer- In-Charge of the Dokmoka Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that during regular naka checking duty in front of the police station, at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, one truck bearing Registration No. AS 01-KC-6645, coming from Arunachal side and moving to Manipur was intercepted and on search of the same vehicle, 205 cartons of beer was found there. 4. During interrogation of the driver, it was found that the seized beer was illegally smuggled from Arunachal Pradesh to Manipur. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged by FIR. He submits that the petitioner is the owner of the transport company, namely, Aryan Road Lines, which had hired the vehicle, which was seized in connection with this case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, his custodial detention may not be necessary, hence, he may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. D. Das, has produced the case diary of Dokmoka P. S. Case No. 06/2025 and has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary. He, however, submits that the seizure of the smuggled beer has already been made and the investigation has fairly Page No.# 3/3 progressed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of Dokmoka P. S. Case No. 06/2025. 9. Considering the progress in the investigation as well as the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner in this case, his further custodial detention may not be necessary if he cooperates with the Investigating Officer. 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, Karbi Anglong 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