Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010057082025 2025:GAU-AS:4275 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./791/2025 ANITA BARMAN W/O-BIDHAN BARMAN,R/O-KOLONGPAR,SONAPUR,GUWAHATI,P.O AND P.S-SONAPUR,DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM,PIN-782402 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T N DAS, MS PURABI DEKA,MS JUTISMITA DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 07.04.2025 Heard Ms. J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Sonapur P. S. Case No. 31/2025, under Sections 20(b) (ii) B of NDPS. 3. The Case Diary called for has not yet been received. 4. In this regard, Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the I.O. has sought some time to furnish the case diary. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the present accused/petitioner is behind bar since 10.02.2025, i.e. 55 days. She further submitted that the contraband alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused/petitioner is of intermediate quantity, which is below the commercial quantity. She also submitted that the I.O. had sufficient time for custodial interrogation while keeping her in custody, and hence further custodial interrogation may not be required in the interest of the investigation. Additionally, she is ready and willing to extend her cooperation if granted the privilege of bail. 6. In that context, Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the case diary is not available, and he is not in a position to comment on the materials collected by the I.O. Further, he submits that the quantity of cannabis seized from the possession of the accused/petitioner is 1.995 kgs as per the FIR, and in the meantime, there is no likelihood of filing the charge-sheet within the stipulated period. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, along Page No.# 3/3 with other aspects of the case and the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner i.e., 55 days, I find that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the interest of the investigation. Therefore, I find it a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Anita Barman, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when called for; (ii) that the petitioner 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant