Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010157022026 2026:GAU-AS:12137 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2116/2026 SUNIL DEKA S/O SRI KHAGEN DEKA VILL- AGDOLA, P.O AND P.S - BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST - KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781301 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARANIA, MR. B G OWARY,MR A SARANIA,MS. H TERONPI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS. D DAS BARMAN(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 24.08.2026 Heard Mr. M Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent and Ms. DD Barman, learned counsel for the informant. Page No.# 2/5 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Baihata Chariali Police Station Case No.137/2026 under Sections 61(2)/103(1) & 117(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR dated 24.06.2026 was lodged by the mother of the victim which was registered as Baihata Chariali Police Station Case No.137/2026 under Sections 61(2)/103(1) & 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 in connection with which the petitioner was arrested and has been in jail since 25.06.2026. The mother of the deceased lodged the FIR on 24.06.2026 stating, inter alia, that her son who used to work in the petitioner’s hotel went for discharging his duties at around 9.30 AM on 23.06.2026 and that he returned to his home at 10.30 AM on the same day and when the mother questioned the victim son about his injuries, the victim replied that the owner of the hotel i.e. the petitioner had assaulted him causing serious injuries to his body by hitting with an iron rod. The informant further stated that is on the next day i.e. 24.06.2026 the family members of the victim admitted him in AIIMS Hospital, Changsari where the doctor declared him dead after his admission. 4. Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim was taken to the hospital on the next day i.e. on 24.06.2026 and that it cannot be discerned that the victim died due to the alleged assault made by the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner. He submits that a piece of wood was seized by the police and that the facts narrated in the FIR that he was hit by an iron rod is not correct. He further submits that if at all any assault was made by the petitioner, the same were on the victim’s leg as can be seen from the ejahar as well as the forwarding report. He as such submits that the death of the victim was due to some other reason. 5. Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam on perusal of the case diary submits that there are eye witnesses to the occurrence to the effect that in the hotel when the victim was assaulted by the petitioner it was seen by the other workers of the said hotel who had stated that it was the petitioner who had assaulted the victim but the assault according to him was on the legs of the victim. He further submits that the postmortem report shows that there are multiple injuries on the body of the victim and the victim died on 24.06.2026. i.e. immediately on the next date of the alleged assault made by the petitioner. 6. Ms. DD Barman, learned counsel for the informant submits that the victim died due to the assault made by the petitioner and since the victim belongs to a poor family, he could not be taken to the hospital on the day of the assault i.e. on 23.06.2026 and on the next day i.e. on 24.06.2026, the family members had Page No.# 4/5 taken the victim to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. She also submits that the eye witnesses to the occurrence were also employees of the said hotel where the victim assaulted and beaten by the petitioner. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds as follows: (i) the victim was not taken to the hospital on the day of the alleged assault i.e. on 23.06.2026 but was taken to the hospital on the next day i.e. 24.06.2026. (ii) the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place in the morning hours i.e. at 9.30 AM on 23.06.2026 and the victim returned to his house at 10.30 AM but he was not taken to the hospital after that. (iii) Further although it is written in the FIR that the assault was made by an iron rod but the police had seized a piece of wood from the place of occurrence as can be seen from the seizure list dated 26.06.2026. (iv) Further in the postmortem report the injuries were on different parts of the body i.e. shoulder, ankle, toe as well as knee joint. Other parts of the body including the abdomen, thorax etc were found to be without any injuries. It is also seen that the petitioner was in judicial custody since 25.06.2026. 8. As such, this Court deems it fit that the petitioner be enlarged on bail on Page No.# 5/5 furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rangia under the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when call for and cooperate with the investigation; (ii) The petitioner will not hamper/tamper with the evidence collected in the said case or with the investigation in any manner;. (iii) The petitioner will not leave his place of residence without the prior written permission of the arresting authority. (iv) The petitioner will not influence any witness connected with the case; (v) The petitioner will not approach any of the relatives of the deceased victim at any point in time. (vi) If any of the conditions are found to be violated then the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. Bail application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Returned the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant