Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010057372025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./820/2025 SRI SURAJ BHAN SINGH BHANDARI SO MEHARIBAN SINGH BHANDARI PERMANENT R/O H. NO. 333, SECTOR-3, TELIPARA, NAGINA P.S. RAIPUR,DIST. BIJNOR (UTTAR PRADESH) PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H. NO. 47, SOUTH BANGALI BASTI, MAIDAMGAON, P.S. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR U S BORGOHAIN, M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, M PATHAK (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 24.03.2025 Heard Mr. U.S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Page No.# 2/4 the State and Mr. M. Pathak, learned counsel for the informant. 2. By this Second bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Suraj Bhan Singh Bhandari, has prayed for bail in connection with Sootea P.S. Case No. 17/2025 under Section 111(3)/318(2)/316(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though a bail application moved by the petitioner vide BA No. 699/2025 and after perusal of the case diary, the same was rejected by this Court on 13.03.2025. Subsequently, some developments arose on the part of the accused/petitioner that he had paid the entire amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) to the informant, as a result of which, an agreement was executed between the parties. i.e. the informant (as 1st party) and one Vinod Singh(as 2nd party) who is the representative of the petitioner, wherein it is reflected “that the 2nd party has cleared all the liabilities and has paid the total amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) only and shall not be liable to pay any amount to the 1st party as aforesaid.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for last 38 days since his arrest on 14.02.2025. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as the nature of the offence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Page No.# 3/4 5. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the informant submits that the entire amount has been paid by the accused/petitioner to the informant and the informant has no objection if the bail is granted to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that she has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the accused/petitioner paid the entire loan amount to the informant, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the accused-petitioner is not necessary. 8. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Sootea P.S. Case No. 17/2025 under Section 111(3)/318(2)/316(2) of BNS, 2023, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount out of which one of the sureties should be a Government employee of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Biswanath, Assam. 9. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused-petitioner: (i) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned CJM, Biswanath, Assam, without prior written permission from him/her and shall co-operate with further investigation of the case; (ii) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to Page No.# 4/4 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. 10. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant