Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010132442026 2026:GAU-AS:9368 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1787/2026 SRI KAMAL GUWALA AND ANR . S/O- GULLA GUWALA, VILLAGE - FATAPUKHURI, P.S- RAIGANJ, DISTRICT- JAIPAIGURI, WEST BENGAL. 2: SRI MANU GUWALA ALIAS BISHAL GUWALA S/O- LATE SUNIL GUWALA ALIAS SIMMU GUWAA VILLAGE - FATAPUKHURI P.S- RAIGANJ DISTRICT- JAIPAIGURI WEST BENGAL VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM , REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 26-06-2026 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. S Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as they are behind bars since 08.05.2026 in connection with Kalaigaon P.S. Case No. 53/2025 u/s 303(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Munir that the present accused/petitioners are in custody since last 50 days and considering their length of detention only, their prayer may be considered. However, their earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2026. But, the second and subsequent bail application has been filed for bail only on the length of detention. 4. Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submitted that till date there is no recovery of money and hence further custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of investigation and also for recovery of money. That apart, both the accused/petitioners are belong to another State i.e. from West Bengal and hence probability of absconding is also there in the present case. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that on earlier occasion their bail prayer was rejected considering that further custodial interrogation may be necessary for recovery of money and to unearth some of the facts of this case. But, without going into the merits of the case, only considering the length of detention undergone by the petitioners it is seen that the I/O got ample opportunity to interrogate them keeping them in custody and hence this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, the petitioners are provided with the privilege of bail. However, as the petitioners are from the different State, the learned Trial Court below is hereby asked to take all necessary verification at the time of releasing the accused. 6. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Udalguri. The accused/petitioners, namely, [1] Sri Kamal Guwala and [2] Sri Manu Guwala @ Bishal Guwala, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners 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; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned CJM, Udalguri; and (iv) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Udalguri without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant