Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010266982025 2025:GAU-AS:17525 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3892/2025 MINTURAJ KAMAN AND ANR SON OF LATE JITEN SAIKIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PATHALIAL,P.S. DHEMAJI,DISTRICT - DHEMAJI, ASSAM. 2: CHINTU SAIKIA SON OF LATE JITEN SAIKIA R/O VILL- PATHALIAL P.S. DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 17-12-2025 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Chutia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Minturaj Kaman and (ii) Chintu Saikia, who have been arrested in connection with Sessions Case (T- 1) No. 09/2025 under Sections 103/61(2)/49 of BNS, 2023 arising out of Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 82/2025 under Sections 61(2)/117(2)/109(1) of BNS, 2023. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel that the present petitioners got arrested in connection with this case on 30.05.2025 and since then, they are in custody. 5. The charge sheet in the case has already been filed on 31.07.2025 with prayer for further investigation of the case and from the charge sheet it is seen that the I.O. had undertaken to submit the FSL report of the seized four numbers of mobiles phones and DVR along with final post mortem report before this Court on receipt of the same at subsequent time. Thus, from the charge sheet filed by the I.O. it reveals that the investigation was further proceeded and the subsequent charge sheet along with those reports are yet to be submitted by the I.O. when the charge sheet was filed against the present petitioners along with others. Page No.# 3/7 6. More so, from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji on 16.10.2025 it reveals that till date no final post mortem report was submitted showing the cause of death of the deceased as well as other forensic reports in regard to the mobile phones and DVR was also awaited till 16.10.2025 and accordingly, the I.O. was directed to furnish the same. 7. Further, from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 13.11.2025 it also reveals that though one post mortem report was forwarded by the I.O. but that was not the post mortem report which was directed to be furnished by the court and accordingly, the SSP, Dhemaji was directed for ensuring compliance. Thus, from the charge sheet as well as these two orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, it is seen that the investigation was still going on and the I.O. was directed to furnish all the required report by the learned Sessions Judge as it was not received, neither with the charge sheet and nor it was received till the date of passing the orders. 8. He further submitted that the accused petitioners are in custody since 30.05.2025 and charge sheet was also filed within the statutory limitation of 90 days, but inspite of lapse of 90 days, the I.O. could not file the complete charge sheet and the case was still under investigation, wherein, the I.O. prayed for time to file the post mortem report as well as other forensic report for the mobile handsets and DVR analysis etc. Thus, the charge sheet which was filed without completion of the investigation, cannot extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167 (2) of the CrPC. 9. To substantiate his plea, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. Ritu Chhabaria and Ors., reported in (2024) 12 SCC 116 and basically emphasized on paragraps 28 and 33, 33.1, 33.2 and 33.2, which reads as under:- Page No.# 4/7 “28. Therefore, in light of the abovementioned discussions, it can be seen that the practice of filing preliminary reports before the enactment of the present CrPC has now taken the form of filing chargesheets without actually completing the investigation, only to scuttle the right of default bail. If we were to hold that chargesheets can be filed without completing the investigation, and the same can be used for prolonging remand, it would in effect negate the purpose of introducing section 167(2) of the 9 (1995) 4 SCC 190 10 (2018) 16 SCC 158 CrPC and ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed to accused persons is violated. 33.In view of the above mentioned discussions, the issues framed by us stand answered as under:- 33.1. Without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. 33.2. Such a chargesheet, if filed by an investigating authority without first completing the investigation, would not extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. 33.3. The trial court, in such cases, cannot continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time without offering the arrested person default bail.” 10. He further submitted that one revision petition was also filed by the CBI before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for reviewing the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritu Chhabaria (supra), but the said review application was rejected finding no justifiable reasons to entertain the review petition. The learned counsel also furnish the order of the review passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 31.07.2025. 11. Mr. Mahajan further relied on two other decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in BA No. 2260/2023 dated 24.07.2023 and BA No. 3994/2025 dated 11.12.2025, wherein also the ratio laid in the case of Ritu Chhabaria (supra) was considered and bail was granted. 12. Mr. J. Chutia, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that the charge sheet was filed within a stipulated period of limitation, however, there was a prayer made by the I.O. for filing the final post mortem report as well as FSL report for the 3/4 mobiles phones and DVR analysis etc. Further, he submitted Page No.# 5/7 that from the record it reveals that the result of FSL examination of the viscera is available in the record which was submitted by the concerned authority on 02.07.2025. i.e., prior to filing of the charge sheet. 13. Thus, he submitted that prior to the filing of the charge sheet the result of FSL examination was produced by the I.O. and hence, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. Accordingly, Mr. Chutia, raised objection and submitted that bail prayer of the petitioner may be rejected at this stage. 14. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case record and the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 15. It is a fact that at the time of filing of the charge sheet the I.O. undertook to submit the final post mortem report as well as the FSL in regards to four mobile phones as well as DVR. 16. Thus, it is apparent from the face of the record that at the time of filing of the charge sheet those relevant documents were not furnished along with the charge sheet and thus, it can be considered that the case was still under investigation and the final charge sheet or the report was not laid before the Court at the time of filing the charge sheet on 31.07.2025. 17. At the same time it is seen that inspite of lapse of 90 days of stipulated period, the I.O. could not file the other relevant documents along with the charge sheet which are to be furnished along with the final charge sheet, as it reveals from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 16.10.2025 as well as from the order dated 13.11.2025. 18. Thus, from the submission of the learned Addl. PP before the learned Page No.# 6/7 Sessions Judge on 16.10.2025 it is seen that at the time of passing the order the Court did not receive the FSL reports of four mobiles phones and FSL report on one DVR and the final post mortem report intimating the cause of death of the deceased. 19. In view of this and also considering the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed in the case of Ritu Chhabaria (supra) and also considering the views of the Coordinate Benches of this Court, I find that the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167 (2) CrPC as the final charge sheet could not be submitted within the stipulated period of 90 days. 20. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Minturaj Kaman and (ii) Chintu Saikia, be released on bail in connection with Sessions Case (T- 1) No. 09/2025 under Sections 103/61(2)/49 of BNS, 2023 arising out of Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 82/2025 under Sections 61(2)/117(2)/109(1) of BNS, 2023, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, only with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when called for; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Page No.# 7/7 the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji without prior permission. 21. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant