Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010092182025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1380/2025 SRI KARAN KILLA S/O SRI DEEPAK KILLA R/O H/NO. 7, V-MART, BATTALION GATE, P.S. FATASIL AMBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781025 MOBILE NO. 93953-21274 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS M ZOMUANPUII,MR H AGARWAL,MS. B SOREN,MS P GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Karan Killa, who has been detained behind the bars since 14.04.2025 (for last 33 days) in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No. 136/2025 under Sections 105 of the BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 14.04.2025, one Deepali Paul, mother of the deceased, namely, Ajay Paul had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Panbazar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that her son went to see Sarath Puja at Bhutnath on 13.04.2025, during which there was an altercation between the son of the first informant as well as the present petitioner. It is further alleged in this case that after the altercation, the petitioner chased the son of the informant and hit him from behind with his bike, as a result of which the son of the informant fell off from his bike and sustained severe injury. Later on, he succumbed to his injury. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 20 years of age and there was an altercation between two groups of boys on the date of the incident. He further submits that on the same date the petitioner was assaulted by the friends of the deceased and in that respect an FIR was lodged by the present petitioner before the Panbazar Police Station and on the basis of the same FIR, Panbazar P.S. Case No. 137/2025 was registered. He further submits that the death of the deceased in this case is purely accidental and the petitioner never intended to cause death of the deceased. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has already been detained behind the bars for the last 33 days and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. Page No.# 3/4 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Panbazar P.S. Case No. 136/2025 and has submitted that there are materials in the case diary to show that there was an altercation between two groups of persons. In one group of which the petitioner was a part and the other group of which the deceased was a member. She also submits that the materials in the case diary indicates that the petitioner had hit the bike of the deceased with his feet as a result of which the bike fell down and the deceased sustained injuries leading to his death. She fairly submits that the death of the deceased does not appear to be intentional. However, she submits that there are incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the case diary. She, however, opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the investigation is still going on. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have considered the materials in the case diary. 8. From the materials in the case diary at this stage, prima facie, it appears that the death of the deceased does not appear to be intentional. However, the accident of the bike of the deceased was caused as it was hit by the petitioner with his feet. Whether the bike was hit intentionally or not is a subject matter of the investigation. However, considering the fact that in the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of many relevant witnesses, and the investigation is mainly pending for receipt of the post-mortem examination report, and in the meanwhile, the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 33 days. 9. Considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner as well as progress made in the investigation, this Court is of considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial detention Page No.# 4/4 may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Panbazar P.S. Case No. 136/2025. 10. For the reasons stated therein, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. 12. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant