Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010015342026 2026:GAU-AS:1656 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./295/2026 DEEP BORO S/O SRI HEMEN BORO R/O HIJUGURI BAHBARI P.O.AND PS TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HASAN, MR. I K BURAGOHAIN,MR. A HASAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 09-02-2026 Heard Mr. N. Hasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 09.01.2026 in connection with Bordubi P.S. Case No. 03/2026 u/s 105 of BNS Act. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused/petitioner did not commit any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is a fact that he was driving the alleged vehicle at the relevant time of incident and while reversing the vehicle the unfortunate incident happened. But, from the contents of the FIR itself it is seen that there is no ingredient to attract Section 105 BNS. Rather, it may be a case of Section 106 (1) BNS. The accused/petitioner is in custody for 32 days and thus the I/O got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him during the investigation. Hence further custodial detention may not be required for the purpose of investigation. The crane i.e the vehicle has already been seized by the police and there are sufficient progress in the investigation. However, he is ready and willing to extent his cooperation in further investigation of the case as and when it is required. 5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the statement of the FIR as well as the statement made by witnesses it is seen that he did not stop the vehicle for reversing in spite of several warning given to him and for which the accident had happened and a person died. Accordingly, Mr. Borthakur raised objection and submitted that further custodial interrogation may be necessary. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and Page No.# 3/3 the materials available in the Case Diary vis-a-vis the statement made in the FIR and all other circumstances of this case, I find that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for further investigation of the case. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Tinsukia. The accused/petitioner, namely Deep Boro, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them 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 CJM, Tinsukia without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant