Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010013642025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3937/2024 BIMAL RABHA AND ANR S/O HASEN RABHA VILL- DANGKHONG P.S. MENDIPATHAR DIST. NORTH GARO HILLS MEGHALAYA. 2: RUSTOM RABHA S/O RATNESWAR RABHA VIL- DANGKHONG P.S. MENDIPATHAR DIST. NORTH GARO HILLS MEGHALAYA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. N UDDIN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 05.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. J. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Bimal Rabha and Rustom Rabha, who were arrested on 29.07.2024 (for the last 192 days) in connection with Sessions Case No. 127/2024 arising out of Agia P.S. Case No. 64/2024 under Section 126(2)/310(3) of BNS read with Section 25(I-A)/ 27 of Arms Act. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15.07.2024, one Shri Nayan Goyal had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Agia Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on that day, the informant was coming from Rajapara along with his father in a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-FB-2205. 4. It is further stated in the FIR that when the said vehicle reached near Solmari Kali Mandir, at about 7.40 p.m., 4 to 5 numbers of unknown miscreants stopped the vehicle and after pointing pistol towards the driver of the vehicle, namely, Hasan Ali, killed the father of the first informant by shooting him on his head by pistol. 5. It is further stated in the FIR that the miscreants also Page No.# 3/5 assaulted the informant and caused serious injuries to him and looted an amount of Rs.90,000/-(Rupees Ninety Thousand only) cash from them. It is further stated in the FIR that later on, the father of the first informant, namely, Ashok Goyal was rushed to the Goalpara Civil Hospital, where he was declared dead. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, investigation was initiated and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid against 4 (four) accused persons and 2 (two) more accused persons were shown as absconder. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been languishing behind the bars for the last 192 days and the trial is yet to commence, as charges are not yet framed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the charge-sheet in this case was filed even before completion of the investigation and from perusal of the charge-sheet, it was revealed that even before collecting the FSL report, the charge-sheet was laid and therefore, he submits that the petitioner is also entitled to get default bail. 10. He further submits that there are 22 listed prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet and the trial is yet to commence, therefore, it is unlikely that the trial would culminate soon, hence, he submits that on the ground of prolonged incarceration, the present petitioners are also Page No.# 4/5 entitled to get bail. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed to grant bail to the present petitioners on the ground that the offence involved in this case is heinous in nature, where one innocent person was killed, in cold blood, by using fire arms. He also submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners in the case diary and the trial is likely to end in conviction. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that in the meanwhile the Investigating Officer has already submitted the FSL report before the Trial Court. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record carefully. 14. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners regarding their involvement in the alleged offence. 15. It also appears that though at the time of submitting of charge-sheet the Forensic Laboratory Report regarding the blood sample collected from the steering wheel and the driver seat of vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-FB-2205 was not submitted along with charge- sheet, however, the investigation as regards the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged offence was complete. The only thing which was remaining was submission of Forensic Laboratory Report, hence, the facts and circumstances of this case does not justify releasing the petitioners on default bail. Page No.# 5/5 16. Moreover, the nature of the offence involved in this case, where an innocent person was shot dead from point blank range does not justify taking a lenient view of the matter where there are incriminating materials against the petitioners. 17. The records of the case also suggests that two of the co- accused attempted to escape from custody during investigation and two others are still absconding, which in itself may be regarded as an additional ground for denying the bail to the petitioners in a case involving heinous offence of planned murder, when there are incriminating materials against both the petitioners. 18. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. 19. The prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected and this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant