Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010157022025 2025:GAU-AS:11069 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2326/2025 RUBUL SHARMA SON OF LATE LOHIT CH. SHARMA VILL- MATHARUPAR, TIHU P.S. TIHU, P.O. TIHU SUB-POST OFFICE DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM PIN-781371 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I S MAZUMDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. B BORGOHAIN (INFORMANT),MR B SAIKIA(INFORMANT),MR. S NEOG(INFORMANT),MS. S G BARUAH(INFORMANT) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard Mr. I. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. Also heard Ms. S. G. Baruah, learned counsel for the informant. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Rubul Sharma, who was arrested in connection with Sessions Case No. 90/2025 arising out of Paltanbazar P.S. Case No. 53/2025 under Sections 103(1) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel that the petitioner is in custody since last 6 (six) months and charge sheet in the case was submitted and charge was also framed against the present petitioner. 5. He further submitted that in the heat of the moment after a heated argument, he committed the offence and thereafter, on the day of the incident itself, he surrendered before the police station and since then, he is in custody. Thus, there is no chance of his absconding, rather, he will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date the case is fixed, and will contest the case. 6. He further submitted that his earlier bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the parents-in-law of the accused also resides in the same house and thus there is every likelihood, the accused, who is violent in nature will cause harm to them or threatened to do so. 7. He also submitted that the house, wherein, the accused is residing in one room on rent and in the other room his parents-in-law are residing. But it may not be a case that he will again reside in the house along with his parents-in- law. 8. Mr. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP submitted that 18 numbers of witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet by the prosecution and till date no witnesses could be examined by the prosecution and only charge has been framed against Page No.# 3/4 the petitioner under Section 103 BNSS. He further submitted that he committed the crime in his room in presence of his parents-in-law and other persons and hence, probability of threatening or hampering with the evidence of the vital witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. Accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that bail prayer of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 9. Ms. Borah, learned counsel for the informant submitted that the accused had committed the crime, which is also admitted by the petitioner and even after the incident he did not inform his parents-in-law and leaving his wife in such a condition, he went to the police station and surrendered before the police as there is no other option left for him, but considering all the circumstances of this case, there is every probability of hampering or threatening to the vital witnesses of the prosecution and accordingly, she submitted that the bail prayer of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 10. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and it is seen that petitioner’s earlier bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge with the observation that possibility of hampering with the vital witnesses as there, as there was submission from the informant side that the present petitioner may threaten or cause hurt etc., to the parents-in-law, who are vital witnesses of the prosecution. 11. Considering all these aspects of the case and the nature of offence as well as considering the fact that trial of the case is yet to be commenced and the vital witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution, I find that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner, at this stage. Page No.# 4/4 12. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Rubul Sharma, in said Sessions Case No. 90/2025 stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant