Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010166092025 2025:GAU-AS:10788 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2409/2025 SULTAN AHMED AND ANR S/O SHAFIQUR RAHMAN VILL- KAMARBOND, P.S. PATHERKANDI DIST. SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ), ASSAM, PIN-788724 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:BADRUJ JAMAN @ BODRUL S/O FAKAR UDDIN VILL-DURLOBPUR (KAMARBOND) P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-78872 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K TALUKDAR, MRS. H THAKURIA,MR A HAI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 13.08.2025. Page No.# 2/4 Heard Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused petitioners, namely, (1) Sultan Ahmed and (2) Badruj Jaman @ Bodrul, who have been arrested on 28.04.2025, in connection with Patherkandi P.S. Case No. 87/2025, under Sections 61(2)/140(2) of the BNS, 2023, with added Section 103(1)/238(a) of the BNS, 2023. The scanned copy of the TCR is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners that the present accused petitioners are innocent and they are not at all involved with the incident. However, the FIR in the missing entry was lodged on 10.04.2025 and the body of the deceased was recovered on 14.04.2025, from a canal near the house of the present petitioners. He further submitted that initially one Mokbul Hussain was arrested in connection with this case on the basis of some CDR analysis and thereafter he was on police remand for four occasions and then only he made some statement in regards to involvement of the present two petitioners only due to pressure of the I.O. He further submitted that there was admittedly some monetary disputes but in that regard also, the said dispute was due to some transaction of Yaba tablets. Further he submitted that out of the two accused petitioners, accused petitioner Sultan Ahmed was the tutor of the deceased and they were not at all involved in the kidnapping as well as committing murder of the son of the informant. Page No.# 3/4 Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the present accused petitioners also belong to same village and they are known to each other and as such, there is no chance of absconding also even if the present petitioners are granted with the privilege of bail. Further he submitted that except the very statement made by the co-accused, there is no whisper against the present two accused petitioners. The case has already been charge sheeted and hence, there cannot be any question of hampering or tampering with the investigation of the case. Rather, to prepare for their defence, they may be released on bail at this stage. Both the accused petitioners are in custody for 108 days and hence, their custodial detention may not be required for the purpose of trial. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused petitioners and considering all the incriminating materials, prima facie established against these two accused petitioners, the case has been charge sheeted against them. Further he submitted that from the post mortem report it reveals that a 12 years old boy was brutally murdered and from the materials available in the case diary, it also reveals that there was a conspiracy with these two accused petitioners along with one Mokbul Hussain to kidnap the victim and subsequently they committed murder of the son of the informant. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma submitted that considering the seriousness and the gravity of the offence, the two accused petitioners may not be released on bail at this stage, as there is probability of hampering with the evidence of the vital witnesses also cannot be denied. He further submitted that the length of detention may not be the sole criteria to allow the accused petitioners to go on bail. Page No.# 4/4 Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the trial Court record and the case diary and it reveals that the charge sheet has been laid only on 09.07.2025 and the charge is yet to be framed and trial is yet to be commenced. It is seen from the forwarding report as well as the other materials so far collected by the I.O. that during the investigation, it has come to the light that these two accused petitioners had disclosed the actual motive of the crime and in the course of investigation, it has also come to the light that the other co-accused Mokbul Hussain had close connection with the other two co-accused and they all made a conspiracy initially to kidnap the victim and subsequently the boy was murdered. Considering all these aspects and the materials so far collected by the I.O. vis-à-vis considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I find that the probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of the witnesses, specially the vital witnesses cannot be denied at this stage and accordingly, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the privilege of bail at this stage. In view of this, the present bail petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant