Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010229442025 2025:GAU-AS:14607 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3370/2025 MAMUN RASHID RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUB BANDORMELA, PO CHARING, PS MURAJHAR, DISTRICT- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN 782439 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SHARMA, MR. A AHAD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. K MOHAMMED (FOR INFORMANT),MR. D DAS SR. ADV (FOR INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 30.10.2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. K. Mohammad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant. 2. This application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/3 Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, Mamun Rashid, has prayed for bail in connection with Murajhar P.S. Case No. 109/2025 under Section 61(2)/103/238 of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegation in the ejahar lodged by wife of the deceased naming ten accused persons is that the accused persons in conspiracy killed her husband in a pre planned manner. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a case which is actually a case of suicide pursuant to a complaint against the deceased about his involvement in a sexual molestation case of a minor. It is also submitted that in the meantime, the investigation must have progressed and that considering the same and also length of detention, the accused may be granted bail at this stage and that he undertakes to abide by any condition. 5. It may be mentioned herein that, the earlier bail application was rejected on 17.09.2025 in BA No. 3014/2025 after perusal of the case diary. The copy of the said order has been fairly annexed and I have perused the said order especially the contentions of the I/O at that time referred to in para 7 of the said order. 6. The up-to-date case diary has been received, along with which the I/O has also filed a bail objection. The I/O has contended that on the basis of investigation, it has been revealed that by giving it colour of suicide, the present accused has been murdered in the backdrop of longstanding land dispute between the victim and the present petitioner. It is reiterated that the allegation of sexual assault against the deceased was not found to have basis and has been used to divert the issue. It is stated that no complaint regarding any such Page No.# 3/3 sexual offence was received till the time of alleged suicide of the victim. The I/O has further contended that the petitioner is a influential person financially and politically and that the investigation has already faced exertion of pressures to manipulate the same. It is also contended by the I/O that the petitioner is a habitual offender and particulars of four other cases against him have been mentioned. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the bail objection of the I/O and strongly object, to grant of bail, further submitting that serious incriminating materials found against the petitioner and there are bona fide apprehension of prejudice in the investigation at this stage, if the petitioner released on bail. 8. The learned counsel for the informant supports the argument of the prosecution and strongly object to grant of bail contending that informant side has bona fide apprehensions. 9. I have perused the relevant portions of the case diary and considered the contentions of the bail objection. The investigation is still in progressed. In the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it may be prudent to allow the investigation to be completed rather than grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. In such view of the matter, this subsequent bail petition is rejected at this stage. 10. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant