Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010061672025 2025:GAU-AS:3413 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./896/2025 RITURAJ CHUTIA S/O LATE GITIKA CHUTIA VILL-NO. 2 PURONI MOTAPUNG P.S. BAREKURI DIST. TINSUKIA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 26.03.2025 Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is preferred by the petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 24.01.2025 in connection with G.R. Case No. 104/2015, arising out of Krishnai P.S. Case No. 06/2025, under Sections 120(B) /121 /121(a) /122/124(a)/307/511 of IPC read with Section 10/13 of UA (P) Act of the IPC, which is pending before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Haque, submits that the petitioner has been in custody for 62 days and that his earlier bail application was rejected on 24.02.2025 in Bail Appln. No.335/2025. He further submits that, given the length of detention already undergone, the petitioner’s prayer for bail may be considered. More so, the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed to face trial if granted the privilege of bail. On the other hand, Mr. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that in an order passed in Criminal Petition No. 6/2025, the accused/petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within 15 days from the date of the order. However, it is seen that despite the said order, he left the Court premises without informing his engaged counsel, leading to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) against him, considering his conduct. Accordingly, at this stage, he raises an objection to granting bail to the accused/petitioner. Considering the submissions of both parties, as well as the observations made in the order dated 07.01.2025 in Criminal Petition No. 6/2025 and Bail Appln. No. Page No.# 3/3 335/2025 dated 24.02.2025, along with other relevant aspects of the case, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the accused/petitioner may be required in this case. However, considering the 62 days of detention already undergone, the accuse d/petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 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 District & Sessions Judge, Goalpara, the accused/petitioner, namely, Rituraj Chutia, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Goalpara, as and when the date is fixed; (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 him 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 District & Sessions Judge, Goalpara,, without prior permission. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant