Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./982/2026 of HARJYOTI BAISHYA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 22 April 2026
GAHC010067702026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./982/2026 HARJYOTI BAISHYA SON OF LATE KAMALA BAISHYA RESIDEN TOF VILL- KALDI,P.O. MUKALMUA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
GAHC010067702026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./982/2026
HARJYOTI BAISHYA
SON OF LATE KAMALA BAISHYA
RESIDEN TOF VILL- KALDI,P.O. MUKALMUA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G DEKA, MR R CHETRY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. G Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing in the matter. This is an application praying for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Rangia P.S. Case No. 40/2026, where the petitioner was arrested on 22.02.2026. The allegations levelled in the FIR are that some persons had entered into the factory premises and caused damage to the electrical transformer and stole copper wire; the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is noticed that the Trial Court, by an order dated 06.03.2026, has already granted bail to the other co-accused in the matter. The grounds for bail was that further detention of the accused person did not appear to be required in view of the time lapsed from the date of incident and the investigation. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has objected to the bail prayer of the petitioner stating that releasing him on bail at this stage may hamper or tamper with the investigation. This Court is of the view that, in view of the release of the other co-accused in the matter and the length of detention suffered by the petitioner, he is entitled to the privilege of a bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the SDJM, Rangia. The SDJM, Rangia shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be required upon the petitioner to ensure his participation in the investigation.
The Bail Application accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant