Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010074802025 2025:GAU-AS:9278 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./919/2025 REETAM SINGH SON OF SRI BALAWANT SINGH RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 3B PROKASH ENCLAVE HARBALA ROAD ULUBARI P.S.PALTANBAZAR IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781007 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 18.07.2025 Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 91/2025, under Section 356(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 67 of IT Act, 2000 read with Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/ 3(1) (u)/3(1)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, Assam. 3. This Court vide orders dated 13.05.2025 & 03.06.2025, subsequent to granting interim bail to the present petitioner vide order dated 27.03.2025, had directed the prosecution to produce the updated Case Diary along with the FSL Report. However, although the updated Case Diary has been placed before this Court, the FSL Report has not been produced. 4. In this context, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that during the course of investigation, the petitioner has admitted to having made the alleged post on social media. However, the FSL report, which Page No.# 3/4 was directed to be produced before this Court, has not yet been received till date. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted in this regard that all the relevant digital devices of the petitioner have already been seized and are in the custody of the Investigating Agency. More so, he submitted that no new material has been placed before this Court indicating that the petitioner has violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court in the interim bail order or that his further custodial interrogation is necessary. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also on perusal of the record, it is seen that this Court, while granting interim bail to the present petitioner vide order dated 27.03.2025, had examined the facts in detail and subsequently directed the prosecution to produce the FSL Report. However, even after lapse of many dates, the I.O. has failed to produce the said report. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that mere delay in obtaining the FSL Report cannot be a ground to indefinitely keep the present bail application pending, especially when the petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions of the interim bail and hence, I find that further custodial interrogation of the present seems to be not necessary at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.03.2025 is hereby made absolute, subject to the same terms and conditions as stipulated in paragraph No. 20 of the said order, which shall remain binding on the petitioner during the pendency of the investigation. 8. It is made clear that the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek Page No.# 4/4 cancellation of bail in the event of any violation of the conditions by the petitioner or if any fresh materials come to light warranting reconsideration of his bail status. 9. With the above observations, the present bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant