Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010131812025 2025:GAU-AS:10959 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1997/2025 RICHAB DAS SON OF LATE SATISH CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 16, GANDHI NAGAR, P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR M HUSSAIN,MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR. A K AZAD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 14-08-2025 Heard Mr. N. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who is arrested in connection with Sessions Case No. 14/2024 under Sections 120(B)/302 of the IPC arising out of Barpeta P.S. Case No. 504/2023. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hoque, learned counsel that the petitioner was arrested on 14.10.2023 and since last 1 years and 10 months he is in custody. He further submitted that charge sheet in the case has already been submitted and charge against the petitioner was framed on 08.02.2024 and out of 23 prosecution witness, 19 witnesses have already been examined including the vital witnesses. Accordingly, he submitted that considering the period of long incarceration, the petitioner may be released on bail. Further the petitioner is a permanent resident of the locality and there is no chance of absconding and he will appear regularly before the Court below on each and every date, the case is fixed and he will contest the case accordingly. 5. He further submitted that 3/4 witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution and thus it will take considerable period for completion of the trial. 6. Mr. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Crl. A. No. 738/2025 [arising out of SLP(Criminal) Page No.# 3/5 No.15971/2024] (Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattishgarh) and basically relied on paragraph 14 of the said judgment wherein their Lordships observed that long incarceration of 6-7 years in jail as an Under Trial Prisoner, could effect the right of the Under Trial Prisoner to have a speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution and it is also observed that the stress of long trial on accused persons – who remains innocent until proven guilty can also be significant. 7. Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that charge in the case was framed on 08.02.2024 and out of 23 witnesses, prosecution has already examined 19 witness and all the witnesses have implicated the accused petitioner. He further submitted that it is a case of brutal murder, where the petitioner allegedly killed his wife and his daughter in broad day light in front of eye witnesses. 8. He further submitted that it is not a case of acquittal as there was sufficient incrimination in the evidences of the eye witnesses. The trial of the case is also going on regularly and thus within a short period of one year number of witnesses are examined by the prosecution. Further, only 3/4 witnesses are left to be examined by the prosecution and it can be expected that within a short period of time, the trial of the case will be completed. He further submitted that there is every possibility of absconding of the accused petitioner, if he is released on bail at this stage. 9. Mr. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage. 10. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and Page No.# 4/5 I have also perused the scanned copy of the records. 11. It reveals from the TCR that the accused petitioner had brutally killed his wife and his daughter in broad day light in presence of eye witnesses and is also seen that most of the witnesses supported the prosecution version. Further, it is seen that the trial of the case is going on regularly and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, 19 witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and thus, it cannot be said that the accused is deprived of having a speedy trial in the present case to infringe the right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution. 12. The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case, as in the referred case the trial was going for the last 6-7 years, but in the instant case, it reveals that within a very short period the prosecution/the learned Trial Court below had examined 19 number of witnesses and only 3-4 witnesses are left for examination by the prosecution which may be expected to be completed within a short period of time. 13. Further, the possibility of absconding of the accused petitioner also cannot be denied as the witnesses have implicated the accused petitioner in the present case. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. [2005 0 Supreme(SC) 104], has also held that “if a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be question as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorized by law.” 15. In view of the discussion made above and also considering the view of the Page No.# 5/5 Hon’ble Apex Court, I find that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Richab Das in said Sessions Case No. 14/2024 under Sections 120(B)/302 of the IPC arising out of Barpeta P.S. Case No. 504/2023, at this stage. Hence, the present bail application stands rejected. 16. The bail application stands disposed of in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant