Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010195702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2882/2025 TAFIKUL ALI ALIAS TAFIKUL ISLAM S/O NAJIMUDDIN ALI VILL AND P.O. TULSIBARI P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP.B Y THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, M ALAMGEER,MR. I U CHOWDHURY,MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 17.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Alamgeer, learned counsel for the petitioner.. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents. 2. This application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been made by the petitioner, Tafikl Ali @ Page No.# 2/3 Tafikul Islam, who has been detained behind the bar since 18.05.2024 in connection with Sessions Case No. 28/2024 under Sections 120B/364/302/201 of IPC corresponding to Rangia P.S. Case No. 150/2025. 3. It is pertinent to note herein that prior to moving this bail application, the petitioner on earlier occasion also, had approached this Court seeking bail and on that occasion, this Court by order dated 21.05.2025, passed in Bail Application 1327/2025, had dismissed the Bail Application mainly on the ground that considering the nature of the offence involved in the case as well as considering the fact that 7 (seven) more independent witnesses, were to be examined at that point of time. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing trial in respect of charges of kidnapping and murdering the victim girl. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bar since 18.05.2024 and though the bail application was rejected earlier on the ground that few independent witnesses were not examined at that point of time. However, after the said rejection order on several occasion, the case was listed before the trial Court. However, till date, the remaining independent witnesses are not yet examined. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in respect of nature of accusation levelled against the petitioner in the pending trial, he is entitled to defend his case and entitled to be presumed as innocent till his guilt is proved. He submits that the right to get speedy trial is a part of right to live and liberty recognized by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that as the petitioner is seeking bail mainly on the ground of prolonged incarceration and slow progress of the trial, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the case of the prosecution is mainly based on the petitioner leading to discovery of the dead body and there is evidence on record that it was the petitioner, with whom the victim girl is alleged to have eloped and thereafter, her dead body was recovered. He further submits that on earlier occasion also, as few independent witnesses were not examined when the bail application was moved, the prayer for bail was rejected. He submits that in the instant case, though the petitioner is seeking bail before this Court on the ground of prolonged incarceration. However, when before the trial Court, the prosecution witnesses were present, on 17.12.2025, the defence counsel sought adjournment and the PWs could not be examined on that ground. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner may not be allowed to take advantage of his wrong conduct, more so, considering the nature of offence involved in this case as well as the materials available against the petitioner on record. Page No.# 3/3 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. Though, there is no dispute on the legal proposition that every accused is entitled to get speedy trial, when he is accused of having committed offence and if the Court comes to the finding that the detention of an accused facing trial is a prolonged detention, on that ground itself, he may be granted bail. However, the question as to how much detention may be regarded as prolonged detention, may differ in case to case depending upon its facts. 8. In the instant case, though the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than 1 (one) year 8 (eight) months and his earlier bail application was rejected mainly on the ground of non- examination of independent witnesses at that point of time. However, it appears that on 17.12.2025, when the independent prosecution witnesses were present, adjournment was sought on the ground that the engaged counsel for the petitioner was suffering from some ailments. 9. It appears from the record as well as from the latest status report produced by the trial Court that 8 (eight) independent witnesses and 6 (six) other official witnesses are yet to be examined. 10. Considering the fact that when the witnesses were present on 17.12.2025, the adjournment was sought for on behalf of the petitioner side, this Court is reluctant to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 11. The trial Court is directed to examine the independent prosecution witnesses as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this order. 12. The petitioner may approach the trial Court for bail after examination of the independent witnesses. However, if the examination of independent witnesses takes longer time, there shall be no bar for the petitioner to move to the trial Court even before completion of examination of all the independent witnesses. 13. With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant