Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010166082025 2025:GAU-AS:11011 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2406/2025 AJAY MAHATO S/O LT BHULAN MAHATO R/O SARUTARI PS SONAPUR DIST KAMRUP METRO ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. P K DAS,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. D BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, RAJU DEURI (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 19.08.2025 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner, viz., Sri Ajay Mahato, has prayed for bail in connection with Page No.# 2/5 Sonapur Police Station Case No.95/2025 registered under Sections 109/117(2)/130/3(5)/329(3) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 as well as Section 103(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The F.I.R. dated 08.06.2025 lodged by the member of GGKSA reveals that a violent incident had occurred on 07.06.2025 at around 8:30 p.m. at GM Coke Industries located at Byrnihat, Assam and in the said incident 13 workers were brutally assaulted by fellow workers within the premises of the said industry. It is further stated that the victims were badly beaten with rod and blunt object and one of the victims who got struck on his head suffered critical injury and that two child workers were also present in the said incident. On receipt of the ejahar the police registered the case under the aforesaid sections of law. 3. During investigation the said injured person succumbed to his injuries and expired and as such Section 103(2) of the BNS was added to the charge sections. 4. Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the person involved in the said incident was not the petitioner but one Ajay Giri whose name reflected during the investigation. He submits that since his name is similar to the person who Page No.# 3/5 was actually involved in the incident, he was arrested and put behind the bars. He further stated that on the last occasion, this Court vide order dated 05.08.2025 had directed the Additional Public Prosecutor to get a report from the Investigating Officer regarding the fact as to whether it was Ajay Giri or the petitioner who was involved in the said incident. He as such prays that it was not the petitioner who is involved in the incident and as such bail may be granted to him. 5. Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Addl. P.P., in compliance of the said direction, got a report from the Investigating Officer wherein it was stated that during the investigation the petitioner was arrested and was forwarded to judicial custody only when sufficient evidence was found against him about his involvement in the commencement of the crime. The I.O. had further informed that there was one more person, namely, Ajay Giri, who was examined and his statement was recorded but it was stated that no evidence was found against him. The I.O. also stated that one more person named as Ajay Kumar is found to be involved in the offence but it is stated that the said person is absconding till date. He also stated that Ajay Mahato i.e. the petitioner, Ajay Giri and Ajay Kumar are all different persons. 6. Mr. Parashar, however, fairly submits that none of the witnesses have stated about the present petitioner by taking his full name as Ajay Page No.# 4/5 Mahato. The witnesses have stated Ajay in their statements. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have seen the records. 8. It is noticed that the Investigating Officer in his report in pursuance to the order passed by this Court had stated that sufficient evidence was found against the present petitioner regarding his involvement in the commencement of the crime. The I.O. did not, however, specifically stated that the petitioner was involved in the crime which led to the death of one of the victims. Further, in the evidence of the witnesses the name was taken as Ajay and not as Ajay Mahato. 9. As such, in absence of proper evidence that it was the petitioner who was involved in the offence, this Court finds it fit to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) under the following conditions :- 1) That the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. 2) That the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses connected with the instant case. Page No.# 5/5 3) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) without the leave of the said Court. 10. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant