Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010230222025 2025:GAU-AS:14608 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3388/2025 AYON CHOWDHURY SON OF SRI ARUN CHOWDHURY PERMANENT RESIDENT OF H/NO. 146, NEW COLONY, RICHAL NEAR GIF GATE NO. 2, P.S. ADHARTAL, DIST.JABBALPUR STATE- MADHYA PRADESH,PRESENT ADDRESS- N-AREA, POLE NO. 1500W203, NEAR SHITALA MANDIR, LANKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782446. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K A MAZUMDER, MISS R A CHOUDHURY,MR E AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 30.10.2025 Heard Mr. K.A. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, Ayon Page No.# 2/3 Chowdhury, has prayed for bail in connection with Umrangso P.S. Case No. 17/2025 under Section 103(1) of BNS added Section 3(5)/61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. This is a subsequent bail petition as an earlier bail petition on behalf of the accused was rejected by this Court on 25-09-2025 in BA No. 2932/2025 after perusal of case diary. 4. The case arose out of an FIR lodged by the son of the deceased with the allegation that some unknown persons have killed his mother. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is an engineer in L & T company and he is neither named in the FIR nor involved. He was arrested solely on the basis of suspicion during investigation. 6. The petitioner counsel submits that the petitioner is suffering due to his prolonged under trial detention and that in the meantime, investigation also may have must have progressed and considering the length of detention and progress of investigation, his bail may be considered at least. It is also submitted that apart from his job in the company, he also is pursuing some courses and due to his detention that same is being badly affected. 7. The updated case diary was called again and received along with bail objection from the I/O. 8. On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the bail objection of the I/O – strongly objects to grant of bail in the subsequent bail petition also. Drawing attention to the relevant portions of the investigation revealed in the case diary, it is submitted by the prosecution that the investigation has progressed and in a crucial stage and bail at this stage Page No.# 3/3 could be detrimental to the investigation. 9. The complicity of the present accused along with three others have been found in alleged offence of murder committed by co-accused Stephen Hanse at their behest on payment of money. It is submitted by the prosecution that the investigation has also revealed that sexual assault was also committed upon the deceased victim. 10. I have also perused the contentions of the bail objection. It is stated that one waist belt stated to have been used for killing the victim by co-accused Stephen Hanse has been recovered at his instance and identified to be his by his wife and that the same has been sent for forensic examination. It is stated that the post-mortem report has indicated sexual assault and death by strangulation. It is stated that the investigation is at a crucial stage and bail at this stage could be detrimental to the investigation. 11. It is also stated that the victim belongs to Schedule Tribe and weaker section of society but that the present petitioner belongs to another State and also has rich and influential background. 12. Upon perusing the materials and considering the contentions and submissions, I find myself agreeing with the prosecution case for rejection of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the subsequent bail petition also stands rejected at this stage. The bail petition stands disposed of 13. Return back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant