Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010141972026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1563/2026 SRI PANKAJ DAS SON OF SRI PHANIDHAR DAS RESIDENT OF BASUDEV BARI PO AND PS JAKHALABANDHA , PIN- 782136, DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, MS. M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B SARMA (FOR INFORMANT),MS M NIROLA (FOR INFORMANT),MR. R S MISHRA (FOR INFORMANT),MR. A K GUPTA (FOR INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 10.09.2026 1. Heard Ms. G. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as Mr. A. K. Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 15.07.2026, Page No.# 2/3 and as per the directions of this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer of Tinsukia P. S. Case No. 113/2026 and has cooperated in the investigation. She submits that the petitioner shall continue to cooperate in the investigation and as he has complied with the directions of this court, the interim bail granted to him on 15.07.2026 may be made absolute. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Tinsukia P. S. Case No. 113/2026 and has submitted that in pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023 has been recorded. He, however, submits that there are some incriminating materials in the case diary. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Gupta, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not only subjected the victim to torture, but also caused forceful abortion of her. He submits that the victim apprehends that if the petitioner is allowed to remain on bail, he may threaten the victim and may hamper the course of investigation. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. 6. It appears from record that though there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary, however, he has complied with the directions of this Court given to him by order dated 15.07.2026 and has been cooperating in the investigation. Page No.# 3/3 7. It also appears that apart from the apprehension of the victim that the petitioner may influence the investigation or threaten her, there is no material on record to substantiate the same, as after obtaining interim bail, he has not acted in any such manner, which would cast any apprehension that he may violate the conditions imposed by this Court while granting interim bail. 8. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for the sake of fair investigation. 9. In view of above discussion and reasons stated, the interim bail granted to the petitioner by this Court by its order dated 15.07.2026 is hereby made absolute with condition Nos.1 and 2 imposed by the said order remaining intact. 10. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant