Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010038252025 2025:GAU-AS:5132 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./549/2025 SONGJA RONGPI @ CHANGPI RONGPI S/O HAKIM RONGPI, R/O LINDOK RONGPI GAON AND P.O.CHOWKIHOLA, P.S. CHOWKIHOLA, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782470. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PHUKAN, MR. N M DAS,MR. J HATIMURIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. J. Hatimuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with PRC Case No. 39/2024, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 39/2024, under Sections 120B/302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1-A)/27/35 of Arms Act, which is pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. Scanned copy of the case record, along with the present status report, has already been received wherefrom it is seen that the charge has already been framed against the present accused/petitioner. In this context, Mr. Hatimuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the present accused/petitioner is behind the bar for more than 6 (six) months and the charge has already been framed against him. He further submitted that the co-accused persons are already been granted bail by this Court and hence, considering the case of the present accused/ petitioner on the same footing, he may also be granted bail on the ground of parity. The accused/petitioner, being the permanent resident of his addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding or hampering or tampering with the witnesses of the case. He will regularly appear before the Court on each and every date to be Page No.# 3/3 fixed by the Court and shall contest the trial. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the case has already been charge-sheeted and the charge has also been framed and hence, the length of detention of the present accused/petitioner cannot be the ground for releasing him on bail at this stage. He further submitted that on perusal of the case record as well as from the charge-sheet, it is seen that the present petitioner took active part in executing the murder of the victim. He accordingly submitted that there is every probability/possibility of hampering or tampering with the evidence of eye witness of the prosecution case and hence, he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to allow the accused/petitioner to go on bail at this stage. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also on perusal of the scanned copy of the case record as well as the statement of the witnesses, it is seen that the present accused/petitioner was found directly involved in the execution of murder of the victim and the eye witness also identified the present accused/petitioner. Thus, considering the nature of allegation brought against the present accused/petitioner and the other materials in the case record, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused/petitioner at this stage and hence, the same stands rejected. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant