Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010266382025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3899/2025 SRI MONIRAM NAYAK S/O - LATE NAREN NAYAK, R/O MANCOTTA KACHARBARI 5 NO. LINE, PANJAN, CHOWKIHOLA, P.S- CHOWKIHOLA, P.S DIST. - DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA, MR. N M DAS,MR. J HATIMURIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 17.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Kalaita, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Moniram Nayak, praying for grant of bail in connection with Sessions Case No.209/2025 under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of BNS arising out of Dibrugarh PS Case No. 390/2024 pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. 3. The allegation in the FIR against the two accused persons was of causing assault and leading to death of the victim who was wife of co-accused, Manoj Nayak. 4. The case was charge sheeted and trial commenced by way of Sessions Case No. 209/2025. Though, charges have been framed but prosecution evidence has not yet started. The facts which has emerged is that as the charge-sheet was not filed within the statutory period of 90 days, the learned court below was pleased to grant default bail to the accused vide order dated 28.12.2024; however, the petitioner was unable to furnish bail bond supposedly due to his poverty and in the meantime, the charge- sheet came to be filed after few months on 28.08.2025 and the subsequent bail application was rejected on 16.10.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibguragh. 5. Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per the settled law, as the petitioner could not furnished bail bond and charge-sheet came to be submitted subsequently, his right to default bail stood forfeited and therefore, his bail application has to be considered on merit. 6. I find the said contention to be correct. 7. The scanned copy has been received. 8. It is submitted that their implication revealed by the investigation including Page No.# 3/3 the statement of the victim’s nephew recorded before the learned JMFC. 9. Nevertheless, considering the length of detention and also earlier circumstances in which the petitioner could not avail the benefit of default bail, I deem it proper to grant him bail at this stage. 10. In such view of the matter , it is provided that the accused petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail of Rs.20,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court subject to the following conditions that the petitioners: (a) shall be available for trial. (b) Shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence 11. Violation of any of the bail conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 12. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant