Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10374 (GAU)

Ngoahang Khoiyang v. State of AP

2026-03-31

Budi Habung

body2026
JUDGMENT : Budi Habung, J. Heard Mr. G. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No.2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, who is the elder brother of the accused, Shri Taney Khoiyang, seeking his release on bail in connection with Banderdewa P.S. Case No. 22/2020, registered under Sections 120(B)/201/302/316/34 of the IPC. The accused has been in custody since 13.11.2020. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the record. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by one Shri Techi Lir, alleging that the accused, Dathang Suyang, along with one Lishi Roni (husband of the deceased, Techi Meena Lishi), conspired and committed the murder of his sister, Techi Meena Lishi, who was also carrying a child in her womb. Upon investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and subsequently, charges were framed against the accused and the other co-accused persons for offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of law. 5. At the outset, it is noted that the earlier bail application for release of the accused was rejected by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 05.01.2026, wherein the plea of parity was considered and the ground for rejection was that the co-accused who were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court were involved in conspiracy and abetment, whereas the present accused had allegedly directly participated in the commission of the offence. Thus, his case stood on a different footing, and the petitioner could not claim parity as a matter of right. The Court also observed that, after the commission of the offence, the accused was attempting to flee to Myanmar along with other co-accused; however, they were arrested at the international border. 6. In the present bail application, the principal ground urged is prolonged incarceration and delay in the trial of the case. It is submitted that the accused has been in custody for more than five years and that, out of 43 prosecution witnesses, only 22 have been examined so far. 6. In the present bail application, the principal ground urged is prolonged incarceration and delay in the trial of the case. It is submitted that the accused has been in custody for more than five years and that, out of 43 prosecution witnesses, only 22 have been examined so far. It is further submitted that two co-accused persons, including the husband of the deceased, Lishi Roni, have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground of delay in trial, and another accused, namely Kapwang Latey Lowang, has been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court on parity. Therefore, it is contended that the present accused is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the case of the present accused stands on a different footing, as he had allegedly directly participated in the commission of the offence. Not only that, the accused is also alleged to have provided shelter to another co-accused after the incident. It is further submitted that the co- accused who were granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court, unlike the present accused, were involved in criminal conspiracy and abetment and not in the actual execution of the crime. It is also submitted that the order granting bail to another accused, namely Kapwang Latey Lowang, is under challenge before the High Court and is still pending disposal. 8. With regard to the delay in trial, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the delay is not attributable to the prosecution alone, as certain witnesses, 6 (six) in number had to be recalled and re-examined due to subsequent developments, including the reframing of charges against one co- accused twice pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. It is further submitted that the trial is now proceeding expeditiously, almost on a day-to-day  basis, with five consecutive dates already been fixed, i.e., on dated 11th , 12th , 13th , 14th , and 15th May 2026, and approximately 20 prosecution witnesses have been summoned for examination. It is, therefore, likely that the trial will conclude soon. 9. Mr. It is further submitted that the trial is now proceeding expeditiously, almost on a day-to-day  basis, with five consecutive dates already been fixed, i.e., on dated 11th , 12th , 13th , 14th , and 15th May 2026, and approximately 20 prosecution witnesses have been summoned for examination. It is, therefore, likely that the trial will conclude soon. 9. Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2, while fully supporting the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further submits that the accused is directly involved and has participated in the commission of the offence. Therefore, his case stands on an altogether different footing, and the principle of parity cannot be applied, as its extension is not automatic. 10. Upon consideration of the submissions and the materials on record, this Court finds that the earlier bail application of the accused has already been rejected on merits, particularly on the issue of parity, and the present application does not disclose any substantial change in circumstances except the ground of delay. Further, the allegations against the present accused are grave in nature, involving direct participation in the commission of the heinous offence of murder of a woman along with her unborn child. Besides, the plea of parity is not acceptable inasmuch as the co-accused who have been granted bail were found to be on a different footing, being alleged only of abetment and conspiracy, and parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 11. Furthermore, although the accused has been in custody for a considerable period and the trial has not yet concluded, the material on record indicates that the delay has been occasioned due to procedural developments. Charges were framed and subsequently reframed twice against one co-accused, and consequently 6 (six) prosecution witnesses were recalled and re-examined as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. Thus, the delay cannot be attributed solely to the prosecution. However, at present, the trial is proceeding almost on a day-to-day basis and is likely to be concluded early within a reasonable time period. 12. Considering the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the accused, and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of influencing witnesses and possibility of the accused remain absconding after obtaining bail, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused on bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 14. 12. Considering the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the accused, and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of influencing witnesses and possibility of the accused remain absconding after obtaining bail, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused on bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 14. However, having regard to the period of detention already undergone by the accused, the learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a reasonable time, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 15. Send back the record