Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010001652025 2025:GAU-AS:6897 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./49/2025 SUJAL ALI S/O SAHADAT ALI R/O VILL- SATGAON, SURYANAGAR, ADARSHA PATH, BYE LANE NO. 3, P.S. SATGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASAAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S RAHMAN, MR. H HAZARIKA,MR. K MOHAMMED,MR. D DAS SR. ADV,S M MUNIR,MS. S PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/11 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 28.05.2025 Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P Goswami, learned Addl. P.P for the State. 2. By filing an application u/s 483 of BNSS, 2023, the accused petitioner Sujal Ali has sought for bail in connection with Sessions Case No.200/2023, u/s 392/302/396/34/120(B) IPC R/W Section 25(1)(A)/27 of Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Guwahati, Kamrup (M). 3. The background of the case is that an FIR has been lodged before the O/C Dispur P.S stating inter alia that on 21.11.2022, informant’s elder brother Ranjit Borah who was on his way to Panjabari from Kahilipara in his Wagon-R vehicle bearing no.AS-01-BH-5022, was shot at by two unidentified miscreants near Purabi Dairy Campus, Panjabari and he later on succumbed to his injuries. 4. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered vide Dispur P.S Case No.2479/2022 and subsequently, the petitioner and the other co-accused were arrested. 5. It was urged by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 13.02.2023 and since then he has been languishing in judicial custody. The case is at the trial stage and out of 23 cited witnesses, only 4 (four) witnesses were examined before the trial court. It is further submitted that one co-accused Jitumoni Barman was granted bail by this Court who also took active part in the commission of the said offence as he supplied Page No.# 3/11 the alleged pistol to the accused Shah Alam by which he committed the crime. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the ground of parity, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. By referring the judgment of Hussain Ara Khatoon (supra), the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Apex Court has observed on the issue by stating that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his personal liberty cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair or just unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as reasonable, fair or just and it would fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also has contended that the petitioner is the victim of circumstances and hence, requires intervention of this Court for the ends of justice since it is well settled as laid down the guidelines for bail and in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in a bail applications generally it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on another case law vide Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 11 SC 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows – “ An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody and that a presumably innocent person must Page No.# 4/11 have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.” Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission also referred the following case laws – a) (2024) SCC Online SC 2732 [ Santosh Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan ] b) (2024) SCC Online SC 4354 [ Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.] c) (2024) SCC Online SC 1920 [Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement] d) (2022) SCC Online SC 2069 [ Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. State of West Bengal] e) (2022) SCC Online SC 2071 [ Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat] 10. Per contra, learned Addl. P.P has vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner by stating that the accused petitioner is the habitual offender. Except this case, vide Dispur P.S Case No.2479/2022, some other similar like cases i.e. murder and dacoity are also pending against the petitioner vide Satgaon P.S Case No.49/2019, Changsari P.S Case No.462/2022 and North Lakhimpur P.S Case No.146/2022. According to learned Addl. P.P, if the accused petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of the offence being repeated. 11. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments cautioned that while granting bail, the Courts should exercise discretion judiciously and framed guidelines for granting bail to an accused. Now, it would be useful to refer to Page No.# 5/11 some of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of grant of bail to the accused. 12. In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT of Delhi and Others, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down following principles for granting bail to the accused - "(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." 13. In Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the factors that must guide Page No.# 6/11 the exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms - "3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order -- but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter….” 14. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus - "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind." Page No.# 7/11 15. In Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. , reported in (2004) 7 SCC 525, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with an application for bail, has stated that certain factors are to be considered for grant of bail, they are - "......(i) nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima-facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.” 16. In Masroor Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2009) 12 SCC 286, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving emphasis to ascribe reasons for grant of bail, however, brief it may be, the Court observed - "There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case." 17. In Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court spelt out some of the significant considerations which must be placed in the balance in deciding the bail application, which reads as under - "While granting bail, the relevant considerations are:- (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) Page No.# 8/11 likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court." 18. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, it reveals that the provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance with a public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is for this reason that a Court must balance a numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case by case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is prima-facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the Court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. 19. Coming to the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner has been detained in custody for last 2 years. 4 (four) witnesses have already been examined before the trial court. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is also involved in the commission of dacoity and murder in several other cases and Satgaon P.S Case No.49/2019, Changsari P.S Case No.462/2022 and North Lakhimpur P.S Case No.146/2022 are some of them. Page No.# 9/11 20. On receipt of the FIR, the case was registered vide Dispur P.S Case No.2479/2022 u/s 392/302/396/34/120(B) IPC R/W Section 25(1)(A)/27 of Arms Act and the charge was framed accordingly against the petitioner and the other co-accused. 21. It also appears that the accused petitioner has made a confessional statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate which was recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC (Section 183 BNSS). In his statement before the Magistrate, he has clearly stated that he along with other co-accused were involved in commission of murder of Ranjit Borah and snatching away money from him. 22. Coming to the question of granting bail to the co-accused Jitumoni Barman, the allegations against him is that he supplied the firearm by which the accused Shah Alam shot at the deceased Ranjit Borah. However, the said firearm was not recovered or seized during investigation. The witnesses examined by the prosecution till date are totally silent regarding supply of pistol to Shah Alam by co-accused Jitumoni Barman. 23. It also appears from the confessional statement of the accused petitioner, prior to murder of Ranjit Borah, the other co-accused namely Shah Alam, Bhupen Das, Joydeb Mohanta and Haren Patgiri were engaged to look into the activities of the deceased i.e. when he used to come to the Bank, parked his vehicle etc. But Jitumoni Barman was not engaged for such purpose. The petitioner also stated that on the date of incident, Jitumoni Barman was not present on the spot and he was at Shillong. 24. Under such backdrop, it can be said that the accusation spelt out against the co-accused Jitumoni Barman is not at the same footing with the present petitioner. Page No.# 10/11 25. In the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in (2024) INSC 909, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as follows – “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim…….” 26. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As it appears that several Page No.# 11/11 similar type of cases i.e. murder and dacoity are pending against the accused petitioner as such there is every likelihood of being repeated of such type of offence and fleeing from justice. 27. However, the learned trial court is directed to give some priority to Sessions Case No.200/2023 and try to dispose it of within a period of 6 (six) months from today. It is made clear that the observation of this Court shall not be considered as an expression of any final opinion as regards the guilt or innocence of the accused. 28. With the aforesaid observation, bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant