Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010112062026 2026:GAU-AS:9012 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1500/2026 MANOJ BHARALI S/O SUNARAM BHARALI, R/O VILL KALMOGURI, PO AND PS GOHPUR, DIST BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN 784178 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. A MAHANTA,MR. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22-06-2026 Heard Ms. T Som, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R J Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/4 Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 20.05.2026 in connection with Gohpur P.S. Case No. 64/2026 u/s 61(2)/318(4)/319(2)/351(2) of BNS Act, 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Ms. Som, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused/petitioner had earlier approached this Court with another application for anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR lodged under the Gohpur police station on 26.02.2026 and in the earlier case this Court had granted him interim pre-arrest bail dated 27.03.2026 with a direction to appear before the I/O and to cooperate in the investigation of this case. In pursuant to the said order the petitioner had already appeared before the I/O, cooperated in the investigation and his earlier anticipatory bail application was also disposed of and absolute bail was granted to the present petitioner. Subsequently the I/O also called the present petitioner to appear before the police station for some interrogation and with a bona fide believe he appeared before the I/O and on that very day an FIR was lodged before the police station and pursuant to the subsequent/the present FIR he got arrested in connection with this case on 20.05.2026. He was never provided with any 35(3) notice though he was participating/cooperating in the investigation of this case in connection with the earlier FIR and was also appearing before the police station. But, without serving any notice u/s 35(3) of BNSS he was arrested while appearing before the police station in connection with the earlier case. However, the present petitioner is in custody since last 34 days and hence considering his length of detention he may be released on bail. 5. Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against him in the Page No.# 3/4 Case Diary. One FIR was also lodged against the present petitioner with similar kind of allegation on 26.02.2026 and thereafter the three informants have lodged the complaint/FIR alleging the misappropriation of money with assurance to give government job in the government institution. He further submitted that the case is still under investigation and hence further custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of investigation. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides it is seen that the petitioner was in interim protection in connection with the earlier case and subsequently his bail application was made absolute. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner had already cooperated in connection with the earlier FIR lodged by the informant and he was visiting the police station for 2/3 occassions for recording his evidence and also cooperating in the further investigation of this case. However, during the pendency of the earlier case, the petitioner was called for and accordingly he got arrested in connection with this case on the basis of the FIR lodged on 19.05.2026 by three of the informants wherein the name of the present petitioner is also reflected in the FIR. However, it is also seen that by the time of his arrest he was not provided with any notice u/s 35(3) BNSS, which was mandatorily required in cases where period of imprisonment is upto 7 years. Further from the Forwarding Report the ground which has been brought by the I/O cannot be considered as a ground for immediate arrest of the present petitioner wherein he was regularly visiting the police station in connection with the earlier case. Further, it is seen that the petitioner is in custody since last 34 days and considering this aspect of the case it is seen that the I/O got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him keeping him in custody and hence further custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Page No.# 4/4 present petitioner may be granted with with the privilege of bail. 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM(M), Gohpur. The accused/petitioner, namely Manoj Bharali, 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 SDJM(M), Gohpur without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant