Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040010202026 2026:GAU-AP:696 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/65/2026 Santanu Choudhary Son of Shri Dipak Choudhary, resident of Ramnagar, Milanbaganpara, PO Ranaghat, Nadia, West Bengal 741201 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Loma Kurdu, Yombom Nasi Tamin,Take Kyamdo,Kolin Dagium Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 27-07-2026 Mr. A. R. Borooah, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional PP for the State. 2. The applicant herein had preferred an anticipatory bail before this Court being AB/62/2026 under section 482 BNSS, seeking pre arrest bail Page No.# 2/3 in connection with Chimpu PS case No. 73/2025 under section 316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/ 61(2) of BNS. 3. While calling for the case diary, a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 17.06.2026 in that bail petition was pleased to grant interim pre-arrest bail to the applicant/petitioner on the following terms and conditions, enumerated in para 11 which is reproduced herein below: “11. In the meantime, pending production of the Case Diary, in the event of the arrest of the accused applicant in connection with Chimpu P.S. Case No. 73/2025, he shall be released on Interim anticipatory bail on execution of a bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with two sureties of like amount, one of which shall be a resident of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, to the satisfaction of the arresting authorities, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the accused applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. of the case within 15 (fifteen) days from today; (ii) The accused applicant 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 such person from disclosing those facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) That the accused applicant shall not influence, hamper or temper with the evidence of the case in any manner. (iv) That the accused applicant shall not leave the State of Arunachal Pradesh without prior permission from the I.O. of the case.” 4. Now, the case of the applicant is that to furnish the bail, the concerned Page No.# 3/3 police official is insisting on a bail amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) by way of cash and that the same causes some difficulties to the applicant and therefore, the applicant is seeking a direction to the police not to insist on cash deposit bail. 5. The learned Additional PP fairly submits that no such specific direction regarding case bail emerges from the order. 6. The relevant paragraph has been reproduced above and it is clear that the court did not make any direction for cash bail. 7. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that it would be unfair on the part of the Arresting authority to insist on a particular mode of furnishing bail, including cash. Therefore, as long as the applicant/petitioner is able to execute the bond of the said amount with the sureties as directed in the order, it is not necessary to insist on furnishing the bail in any particular mode such as cash deposit. 8. Therefore, in exercise of inherent powers under section 528 BNSS, it is directed that the applicant/petitioner in terms of the order dated 17.06.2026, shall be allowed to furnish his bail, without insisting on cash deposit mode. 9. IA stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant