Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010256272024 2025:GAU-AS:6496 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3880/2024 SRI LAKENDRA BASUMATARY S/O SRI HEBAL DAIMARY R/O VILL- KAMARPARA, P.S. DOTMA, IN THE DISTRICT OF KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STA OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:NILIMA KACHARI W/O CHANDRA KANTA DAS R/O BOWALIMARI ABHAYAPURI P.O. AND P.S. ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78338 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A NARZARI, MS. S T BOKTH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK ORDER 22-05-2025 Heard Mr. A. Narzari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The petitioner, namely, Sri Lakendra Basumatary, son of Sri Hebal Daimary, resident of Village-Kamarpara, Police Station-Dotma, District- Kokrajhar, has filed this Page No.# 2/5 application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 on 29.11.2024 praying for his bail in Sessions Case No. 73(BGN)/2024, arising out of Bongaigaon Police Station Case No. 226/2024, registered under Sections 302 IPC, read with Sections 25(1A)/27/35 of the Arms Act, corresponding to G.R. No. 383/2024, in which he was arrested on 01.07.2024 and is in custody since then. 3. Considering the detention in custody since 01.07.2024 the petitioner has prayed for his bail in said Sessions Case No. 73(BGN)/2024, arising out of Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 226/2024. 4. From the records of the case, it is seen that Charge Sheet in said Bongaigaon P.S Case No. 226/2024 was submitted on 23.09.2024 and charge under Sections 25(1-A)/35 of the Arms Act was framed against the petitioner on 21.10.2024. 5. From the charge sheet prosecution’s case is that the accused of B.A. No. 3271/2024, Nilima Kachari suspected her husband Chandra Kanta Das, Gram Panchayat Secretary of Chiponsila Gaon Panchayat of having an illicit relationship with the former Gaon Panchayat President of the same Panchayat, one Subhanshree Narzary and because of that, said Nilima Kachari warned said Subhanshree Narzary, the former Gaon Panchayat President of Chiponsila Gaon Panchayat asking her to stay away from her husband Chandra Kanta Das. Suspecting of continuation of illicit relationship of her husband Chandra Kanta Das with said Subhanshree Narzary, former Gaon Panchayat President; the accused, Nilima Kachari, wife of Chandra Kanta Das had discussion with her sister, Benima Kachari @ Sila, another accused, who is married and resides at Dudhnoi, District-Golapara. Said Benima Kachari @ Sila, through her in-laws and family relationship, including her husband Rajib Basumatary, was known to one Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mufur, Ex-NDFB Cadre of Lakhipur, Goalpara. Said Benima Kachari @ Sila, at the instance of her sister Nilima Kachari engaged Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mupur to eliminate said Chandra Kanta Das, her own brother-in- law, i.e., husband of Nilima Kachari. Said Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mufur engaged his colleague Sagra Narzary @ Taklu, another Ex-NDFB Cadre, with whom said Manoj Kumar Basumatary had undergone training during the NDFB days in the NDFB Base Camp at Udalguri, to eliminate said Chandra Kanta Das on the request of Nilima Kachari because of his alleged illicit relationship. Page No.# 3/5 6. Said Benima Kachari @ Sila initially paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mufur to eliminate Chandra Kanta Das, i.e., the deceased that was paid to her by Nilima Kachari, with an assurance to pay another amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- after the execution. Said Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mufur along with Sagra Narzary @ Taklu and Nakul Iswary @ Hagrama and with the help of Jyotish Daimary, Junel Daimary @ Double Mongor and Lukendra Basumatary @ Lukend killed said Chandra Kanta Das on 26.06.2024. The accused Jyotish Daimary provided the murder weapon to commit the crime and the accused Sagra Narzary @ Taklu hired the killer Nakul Iswary @ Hagrama, where Junel Daimary @ Double Mongor, brother of the accused Jyotish Daimary was having close contact with Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mufur, who along with Nilima Kachari and Benima Kachari @ Sila, planned the execution where Junel Daimary @ Double Mongor was the driver of the vehicle and accused Lukendra Basumatary @ Lukend, the accused petitioner, who is a farmer, kept the arm that was used in the crime, in his house on receipt of cash amount from Sagra Narzary @ Taklu, where accused Sagra Narzary @ Taklu resides adjacent to the house of accused petitioner Sri Lakendra Basumatary and they are known to each other. 7. The charge-sheet along with the call detail reports indicated close relationship of the petitioner Nilima Kachari and petitioner Benima Kachari @ Sila with said Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mupur and Sagra Narzary @ Taklu. 8. Mr. Narzari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are 78 named prosecution witnesses in the charge sheet and as on date, evidences of only five protective witnesses were recorded, who were thoroughly cross examined by the defence. 9. It is seen from the records of the case that the learned District Magistrate, Bongaigaon on 23.09.2024 granted necessary sanction as required under the Arms Act, 1959 to proceed against the accused persons of said Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 226/2024, including the petitioner herein. 10. The case records reveals that the accused petitioner and another accused involved in the murder of the deceased, resides together in the same locality in nearby houses and the weapon of murder was recovered from the house of the petitioner, that was hidden there. Page No.# 4/5 11. It is also seen from the case records that the accused petitioner had communication with other accused persons of the case prior to the incident and also after committing the murder of the deceased. 12. The petitioner is one of the named accused out of eight accused persons in said Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 226/2024. 13. Perused the records of said Sessions Case No. 73(BGN)/2024 that was called for by order dated 24.04.2025. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Narzari, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the recording of evidences of 78 prosecution witnesses will take long time and as on date, evidences of only five protected witnesses have been recorded. 15. Mr. Narzari, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that considering his detention in custody since 01.07.2024, he should be considered for his bail. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) INSC 909 = 2024 STPL 12498 SC have held that— “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.” 17. Their Lordships in said X Vs. State of Rajasthan further held that— “15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no Page No.# 5/5 fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 18. It is already noted above that the incident occurred on 26.06.2024, charge sheet was submitted on 23.09.2024 and charge under Sections 25(1-A)/35 of the Arms Act was framed against the petitioner on 21.10.2024 and in the meanwhile, evidences of five prosecution witnesses have already been record. 19. Considering entire aspect of the matter, on hearing the learned counsels for the parties, on perusal of the records as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), Court is of the view that the detention of the petitioner since 01.07.2024 cannot be considered for his bail in said Sessions Case No. 73(BGN)/2024, arising out of Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 226/2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 383/2024, as it cannot be said that the right of the accused petitioner to have a speedy trial of the case has been infringed since the prosecution is adducing its evidence in said Sessions Case from time to time. 20. For the reasons above, this bail application of the petitioner, Sri Lakendra Basumatary, son of Sri Hebal Daimary, in said Sessions Case No. 73(BGN)/2024, arising out of Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 226/2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 383/2024, being devoid of merit, stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant