Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010193942026 2026:GAU-AS:13965 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/931/2026 SUDIP DAS SON OF DIPAK KR. DAS, RESIDENT OF BONGAIGAON, NATUN PARA, WARD NO. 16, P.S. BONGAIGAON, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KHOUND, MS B BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Bail Appln./1034/2026 SUDIP DAS S/O DIPAK KR. DAS R/O BONGAIGAON NATUN PARA WARD NO.16 P.S. BONGAIGAON DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A KHOUND Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 22-09-2026 Heard Mr. A. Khound, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner praying for modification/alteration of the order dated 29.04.2026, passed by this Court in the connected BA No. 1034/2026, whereby, the Court had put 4 (four) conditions while allowing the bail for the present petitioner on 29.04.2026 passed in BA No. 1034/2026. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Khound that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bongaigaon and the alleged incident took place under the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and as per the condition No.2, the petitioner is to leave the jurisdiction of the Court with prior permission from the Court concerned, i.e., the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 4. But as the petitioner is a resident of Bongaigaon, wherein his old ailing parents resides, the petitioner is in difficultly to take prior permission from the Court before the leaving the jurisdiction on each and every date and hence, prayed that the condition No.2 may be modified with any other strict condition, Page No.# 3/4 to which the petitioner will be abide by. 5. Mr. Khound, learned counsel further submitted that as per the prayer in the interlocutory application, he also need modification of the condition No.3, wherein he was asked to submit the copy of the Aadhar Card and Pan Card before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. But at present he does not want to press the said prayer, as he had already submitted the copy of the Aadhar Card and Pan Card before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 6. He further submitted that while leaving the jurisdiction of the Court, on 02.05.2026 also he made an application before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati seeking permission to leave the jurisdiction for Bongaigaon, which was accordingly allowed directing the present applicant/petitioner to make himself available before the Court on 01.08.2026 and he submitted that the next date is fixed on 01.11.2026. 7. Ms. Borah, learned APP raised objection and submitted that the bail condition No.2 may not be modified/altered. 8. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case record and it is seen that as per bail condition No. 2, the petitioner was asked to leave the jurisdiction of the Court with prior permission, whenever it is necessary. However, from the record itself it is seen that he made a prayer to leave the jurisdiction on 02.05.2026 before the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, which was accordingly allowed without any sort of objection on the part of the Court and only directed the applicant/petitioner to appear before the Court on the next date of listing. 9. Thus, it is seen that the applicant/petitioner is also obtaining the order from the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati without any sort of Page No.# 4/4 difficulty, whenever it was required. 10. Considering the nature of the case, the bail condition was put and at present considering all the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that praying for permission before the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to leave the jurisdiction is not so difficult for the applicant/petitioner and the Court is also considered the prayer very liberally and allowed the applicant/petitioner to leave the jurisdiction for 3 months as prayed for. 11. So, at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need of any modification/alteration of the bail condition No.2 of bail granted on 29.04.2026 in BA No. 1034/2026. 12. Accordingly, this interlocutory application accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant