Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010259842025 2026:GAU-AS:831 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3782/2025 JAYED HAQUE S/O MD. AINUL HOQUE R/O VILL. RAJABAI, BIJAYNAGAR, P.O.- RAJABAI, P.S DIST.- JORHAT VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A MONDAL, MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, WITH Case : Bail Appln./2899/2025 ASHWAJIT BARUAH ALIAS ASWAJIT SON OF SRI DILIP BARUAH RESIDENT OF RAJABARI MISSION COMPOUND P.S. AND DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 VERSUS Page No.# 2/5 THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. K R BORA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 27.01.2026 1. This common order is passed in two bail applications namely, Bail Application No. 2899 of 2025 and Bail Application No. 3782 of 2025. 2. Heard Mr. K.R. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 2899 of 2025 as well as Mr. M.A. Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 3782 of 2025. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The Bail Application No. 2899 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ashwajit Baruah @ Aswajit, who has been detained behind the bars in connection with Sessions Case No. 84/2025, corresponding to Jorhat P.S. Case No. 202/2025 under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/109(1)/3(5) BNSS with added Sections 191(2)/ 191 (3)/ 190 / 103 (1) of BNS 2023 since 22.04.2025. Whereas, the Bail Application No. 3782 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner, Jayed Haque who has been detained behind the bars since 23.04.2025 in connection with the aforesaid case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are languishing behind the bars since a very long period of time and Page No.# 3/5 that they have been implicated in this case falsely. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the eye-witnesses, during conduct of Test Identification Parade, have not named any of the above-named petitioners, though they have named some other co-accused persons. They submit there is no incriminating material on record against the petitioners, except the statement of the co-accused which is not admissible in evidence. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that the eye-witnesses in this case, during conduct of the Test Identification Parade have not implicated the present petitioners though some other co-accused have been implicated in the case. He, however, submits that apart from statement of the co-accused implicating the present petitioners, there is CCTV footage which is stated to be implicating against the present petitioners, in the charge sheet. However, he submits that in the Case Diary no endorsement is there as regards in what manner the petitioners are involved in the offence alleged or what was their role during the commission of the offence. Hence, the perusal of the CCTV footage may be necessary before consideration of the bail of the present petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 7. In the instant case, the accusation is that the son of the first informant, namely, one Bedanga Bhushan Baruah, while he was returning home after watching Bihu festival on 20.04.2025 was assaulted by one Riju and some other persons. As a result of the assault, the said Vedanga Bhushan Baruah succumbed to his injuries. Later on, the police arrested the main accused persons, namely, Riju, who disclosed the names of other accused persons, including the present petitioners of having involved with the offence. Page No.# 4/5 8. On perusal of the scanned copy of the Case Diary, it appears that the witnesses, who claim to have witnessed the incident, during the Test Identification Parade have identified many of the co-accused persons, but did not name any of the above-named two accused persons. 9. The claim of the prosecution side is that in the video footage of CCTV video clip, the petitioners were found at the spot of the alleged offence. However, on perusal of the scanned copy of the case record as well as Case Diary available before this court, apart from the mere mention that the involvement of accused persons is revealed on the basis of statement of witnesses, video footage of the incident and post-mortem examination report, nothing has been specifically mentioned as to what the video footage reveals. In what manner the petitioners are involved or what was their role during the commission of the alleged incident is not indicated in the Case Diary and since the prosecution has also failed to produce the video footage before this court, this court is of considered opinion that even if something incriminating is there in the videofootage, same cannot be manipulated now by the petitioners during the trial as the said evidence (CCTV footage) is in the custody of the court. 10. However, the fact that the petitioners were not named during the Test Identification Parade by independent witnesses also makes their case stronger for grant of bail at stage of the trial. Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever on record suggesting that the petitioners may evade the course of justice. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, both the above-named petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, subject to following conditions:- i. That the petitioners shall cooperate in the trial of Sessions Page No.# 5/5 Case No. 84/2025 corresponding to Jorhat P.S. Case No. 202/2025, which is pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat; ii. That the petitioners shall appear before the trial court as and when so required by the trial court; iii. That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the trial court in the trial pending against the present petitioners; iv. That the petitioners shall provide their contact details including photocopies of their Aadhaar Card or Driving License or PAN card; and mobile number as well as other contact details before the trial court; v. That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the trial court and when such leave is granted by the trial court, the petitioners shall submit their leave address and contact details during such leave before the trial court; and vi. That the petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. 12. With the above observations, both these bail applications are accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant