Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010152392026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2037/2026 PRAMUD DAS S/O LATE DAMODAR DAS RESIDENT OF BOSAGAON, P.S. PANIGAON, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED, I AMIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.07.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. M.H.Ahmed for the petitioner Pramud Das who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 23.06.2026 in connection with North Lakhimpur PS Case No. 201/2026 ( GR Case No.556/2026) under Sections 406/420 of the IPC. Page No.# 2/3 2. Heard learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr. R. J. Baruah for the respondent State who has raised serious objection against the submission of the petitioner who is behind bars for more than one month and further detention of the petitioner is not required for the progress of investigation. It is submitted by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor that Case Diary is required to be perused to consider the bail petition. Without perusal of the Case Diary, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail as the offence alleged is of serious nature. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR itself reveals the petitioner has already returned Rs.1 lac to the complainant. The petitioner has also submitted an affidavit executed by the complainant that the difference between the complainant and the petitioner has been amicably resolved. The affidavit is marked as Annexure-6. Further, the petitioner has submitted some medical documents marked as Annexure-5 and the petitioner has drawn the attention to the radiological report. 4. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection against the radiological report as the petitioner was arrested on 23.06.2026 whereas the radiological report was provided on 25.03.2026. The affidavit marked as Annexure-6 appears to be vague. 5. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is of serious nature. However, I have considered the length of detention and the age of the petitioner. He has been behind bars for more than one month. The investigation may have presumably progressed to a certain extent. It appears that further custodial detention may not be required for the progress of investigation. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is willing to co-operate with the Page No.# 3/3 remaining part of the investigation. It appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court/Illaqa Magistrate subject to the following conditions: i) That the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. every fortnight till completion of the investigation, ii) That the petitioner shall refrain from such activities of which he is alleged and iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior written permission. 8. On breach of any of the above conditions, learned court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 9. In terms of the above observations, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant