Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010197902025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2820/2025 SRI MAAN BARUAH ALIAS MAN BARUAH SON OF SRI SURESH BARUAH R/O RAJABARI BUDDHA MANDIR P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. D BARUAH Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 11.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Page No.# 2/4 Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Maan Baruah @ Man Baruah, who has been detained behind the bars since 22.04.2025(for the last 204 days) in connection with Sessions Case No. 84/2025, under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/109(1)/3(5)/191(2)/191(3)/190/103(1) of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 21.04.2025, one Bhuban Ch. Baruah had lodged an FIR before the Officer- In-Charge of Rajabari Police Out-Post under Jorhat Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on the night of 20th April, 2025, the son of the informant was assaulted with sharp objects by one Riju and some other associates causing grievous injury on the person of the son of the informant. Later on, the injured persons succumbed to his injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is languishing behind the bars for the last 204 days and as the charge sheet has already been laid and the petitioner is ready to co-operate in trial, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 5. He further submits that even during investigation period at the time of production before the remand Magistrate, the police did not prayed for police remand of the present Page No.# 3/4 petitioner and he was only remanded to judicial custody. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused of the offence alleged in the FIR. 7. He further submits that though petitioner was present at the spot, he did not participated in the alleged offence. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 9. He submits that the offence involved in this case is of serious nature where the victim was brutally assaulted which led to his death. 10. He further submits that the petitioner has been identified as one of the accused during the test identification parade by the independent witnesses. 11. He also submits that one of the witness namely, Ranjit Dutta, has specifically witnessed the petitioner assaulting the victim and therefore, unless the said independent witness is examined if the petitioner is allowed to go on bail at this stage, there is likelihood of influencing the said witness by the present petitioner and hence, he prays for rejecting the prayer for bail at this stage. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the Page No.# 4/4 learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records. There are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the records. Further, considering the nature of offence involved in this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it may not be appropriate to grant bail to the present petitioner before examination of the witness who had implicated him in this case. 13. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant