Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010046692025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./744/2025 SANJIP URANG @ SANJIB URANG @ BATCHA, S/O BADAL URANG, VILLAGE ROMAI BONGALI GAON P.S.- LAHOWAL, DIST.- DIBRUGARH VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R A CHOUDHURY, MR. R A MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 30.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R. J. Barua, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. This application under Section 483, of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, Sanjib Urang @Sanjib Urang @Batcha, who has been detained behind the bars since 10.06.2024, in connection with Sessions Case No. 248/2024, under Section 448/302 of the Indian Penal Code. Page No.# 2/3 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant bail application are that the present petitioner is facing a trial under Section 448/302 of the IPC, in Sessions case No. 248/2024, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. 4. The accusation against the petitioner in the case is that on 09.06.2024, he assaulted one Siva Murah, with a dao as a result of which the injured succumbed to his injuries. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the deceased were friends and there was some altercation in respect of a mobile phone and due to the spur of the moment, the petitioner had assaulted the victim with a dao. He also submits that only one blow of dao was made by the petitioner on the left hand of the deceased which indicates that there was no intention on his part to commit murder of the deceased and it was an act due to spur of the moment. 6. He further submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than last 11 months and only two witnesses out of total fifteen listed prosecution witness in the charge-sheet have been examined. 7. He submits that due to his detention he is unable to pursue his defence properly in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to co- operating in the trial. 8. On the other learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the record against the petitioner. He also submits that the charges were framed against the petitioner on 20.08.2024 and thereafter, two witnesses have already been examined and some more material witnesses are yet to be Page No.# 3/3 examined. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, and have gone through the scanned copies of the Sessions Case No. 248/2024. 10. Considering the facts that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since 10.06.2024, which is considerable long period of time and also considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner co-operate in the trial, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the trial in Sessions Case No. 248/2024. 10. In view of the above, the above name of the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/-with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any of the listed witnesses or any other person/persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from discoing such facts during the trial; (ii) That the petitioners shall not indulge in any offence similar to that which they are within the instant case. 11. Accordingly, this bail application is disposed of JUDGE Comparing Assistant