Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010046122025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./620/2025 MINTU BORGOHAIN ALIAS NONO S/O- SRI LUHIT BOGOHAIN R/O- MAJUMALIA GAON P.O- PHULPANICHIGA P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR PARAM HANGKHA KONWAR, MR. S BOIRAGI,MS. P BORAH,MR S BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK ORDER 04.04.2025 Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. The petitioner, namely, Mintu Borgohain @ Nono, son of Sri Luhit Borgohain, resident of village-Majumalia Gaon, P.S.-Gaurisagar, District-Sivasagar, has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on 01.03.2025 seeking bail in Session Page No.# 2/4 Case No. 62 (S-S) 2024 arising out of Gaurisagar Police Station Case No. 19/2024 under Section 103 of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 216/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in which he was arrested on 19.09.2024 and is in custody since then. 3. As per the FIR dated 19.09.2024 lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Gaurisagar Police Station by the complainant, mother of the deceased that on 18.09.2024 she was telephonically informed that her son Dipankar Baruah, in her absence, was brutally killed by her neighbor Mintu Borgohain. On the death of her said son who managed the family by working as daily labor and in his absence she has become helpless and as such, prayed before the police authority of Gaurisagar Police Station to take appropriate action to punish the guilty person. 4. Accordingly, said FIR dated 19.09.2024 was registered as Gaurisagar Police Station Case No. 19/2024 under Section 103 of the BNS, 2023. 5. The petitioner was taken into custody on 19.09.2024 and was produced before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar on 19.09.2024 itself. 6. The Court by order dated 05.03.2025 called for the legible scanned copy of the relevant records from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar. 7. It is seen that after completion of the investigation of the case, charge-sheet in said Gaurisagar P.S. Case No. 19/2024 was submitted on 30.09.2024 against the petitioner under Section 103 BNS. 8. On perusal of the records of the case that was called for, it is seen that after receipt of the charge-sheet of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sivasagar on 05.11.2024 committed the PRC No. 196/2024 arising out of said Gaurisagar P.S. Case No. 19/2024 to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar. On receipt of said PRC No. 196/2024 under Section 103 BNS from the learned JMFC, Sivasagar, it was registered and numbered as Session Case No. 62 (S-S) 2024 before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar. 9. Perused the Post-Mortem report dated 18.09.2024 of the deceased. It is seen that were multiple aberrations of various sizes and shapes over head, chest, abdomen, back and all the limbs on the person of the deceased. Moreover, a ligature mark was found on the person of the deceased situated at anterior part of neck blow the thyroid cartilage that was directed obliquely Page No.# 3/4 downward following the line of mandible towards left; the marks was furrow where the base was pale, hard, leathery and parchment like with red and congested margin. On the cut section the tissues under the ligature mark was found dry, white and glistering with congested tissue above and below the mark. As per the said post-mortem report dated 18.09.2024, the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. 10. From the records of the case, it is seen that charge under Section 103 BNS was framed against the petitioner on 25.11.2024 and up-to 15.02.2025 out of 10 named prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet, the Trial Court has recorded the evidence of two of such prosecution witnesses including the informant and an eye witness to the incident who were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. 11. There are sufficient incriminating materials available in the case records against the petitioner. Considering the materials available in the case records, the detention of the petitioner in custody in said Session Case No. 62 (S-S) 2024 arising out of Gaurisagar P.S. Case No. 19/2024 since 19.09.2024 this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that petitioner’s right to have a speedy trial has been infringed. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X - Vs - State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) INSC 909 =2024 STPL 12498 SC have held that — “In serious offences like rape, murder, dacioty 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 an accused of the case.” 13. Their Lordships in said X Vs. State of Rajasthan further held that — “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. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial Page No.# 4/4 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. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 14. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, on perusal of the records of Session Case No. 62 (S-S) 2024 as well as the records of Gaurisagar P.S. Case No. 19/2024 and considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X -Vs- State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court is of the opinion that detention of the petitioner in custody since 19.09.2024 cannot be considered for his bail in said Session Case No. 62 (S-S) 2024. 15. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Mintu Borgohain @ Nono, son of Sri Luhit Borgohain, in said Session Case No. 62 (S-S) 2024 arising out of Gaurisagar Police Station Case No. 19/2024, stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant