Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010152312026 2026:GAU-AS:13082 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2062/2026 HAREN PATGIRI S/O BHADESWAR PATGIRI R/O VILLAGE KATHALMURI HAT P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, DISTRICT BAJALI (BARPETA),ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, F RAHMAN,MS N SULTANA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 09-09-2026 Heard Mr. S. K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Haren Patgiri, who was arrested in connection Page No.# 2/6 with Sessions Case No. 200/2023 arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 2479/2022 registered under Sections 392/302/396/34/120(B) IPC read with Section 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act. 3. This is the subsequent bail application after rejection of the earlier bail application. 4. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received and perused the same. 5. It is submitted by Ms. Nargis, learned counsel that on the last occasion while rejecting the earlier bail application vide order dated 07.01.2026, there was a clear direction from this Court that the learned Sessions Judge is to examine the vital/relevant witnesses within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of 4/6 months, but surprisingly even after lapse of 6 months, the prosecution could not examine the vital witnesses and only one witness, that too on the application made by the petitioner. 6. She further submitted that after the rejection of the earlier bail application, they have already approached the learned Trial Court stating about the direction of this Court and on the basis of which, one strict direction was also passed by the learned Trial Court asking the prosecution to bring the witnesses and also to prepare a list accordingly, so that the vital/relevant witnesses can be examined within a reasonable time. But inspite of said strict direction of the learned Sessions Judge also the prosecution could not bring any witnesses except one witness who is also not relevant for the prosecution case. 7. She further submitted that merit of the case has already been discussion in the earlier order passed by this Court and hence, she does not want to submit much on the merit of the case, but there is no such evidence against the present petitioner that he used any arms or he was involved in killing or committing the decoity on the deceased. However, there are some allegation brought against him that he was also involved in the conspiracy of the crime. Page No.# 3/6 8. She further submitted that the accused petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2023, i.e., 3 years, 6 months 24 days and hence, considering his long period of incarceration, the bail may be considered, which also violates his statutory right provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. To substantiate her plea, she also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sachin Vs. State of Haryana, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 314/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 14924/2024 regarding long incarceration wherein the bail was granted to the accused appellant considering the period of long incarceration. 10. She further submitted that out of 22 cited witnesses, only 6 witnesses are being examined by the prosecution and hence, the completion of the trial will take considerable period and hence, considering his long period of incarceration, the bail prayer may be considered. The accused being the permanent resident of his addressed locality, he will regularly appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date to be fixed by the Court. 11. Mr. Das, learned APP raised vehement objection and submitted that admittedly there is some delay in the disposal of the case, but the delay cannot be the sole ground for considering the bail application for the present petitioner wherein the allegation of heinous crime has been brought against the present petitioner, wherein he is also a conspirator, who conspired along with the other co-accused person to commit decoity and murder of the victim who used to come to the bank regularly to deposit his sale proceeds. By pointing out the materials on the charge sheet, he submitted that as to how, the present petitioner is involved in the alleged offence and as to how they hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased and with that view two of the co-accused persons had snatched the bike and also shot at the deceased in the brought day light. 12. The present petitioner along with another co-accused was standing nearby giving signal to the other co-accused to commit the said offence. Raising the other Page No.# 4/6 points also, it is submitted by Mr. Das that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner, who is fully involved in the alleged crime wherein a person was killed in the brought day light. 13. Mr. Das, further submitted that there various observations of the Apex Court including in the case of Dipak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 8 SCC 559 wherein also it has been observed that while granting bail, the Court is to see as to whether there is any prima facie reasonable ground to believe that the accused is involved and also to consider the nature and gravity of the acquisition along with the severity of the punishment etc., while dealing with petition for bail. 14. Accordingly, he submitted that long period of incarceration i.e., more than 3 years may not be the sole ground for consideration of the bail application wherein there is sufficient involvement of the present petitioner in such a heinous crime and accordingly, he raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the present petitioner, at this stage. 15. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case record along with the order of rejection passed earlier by this Court. 16. In the present case, the petitioner had not pressed on the merit of the case and only submission made by the learned counsel regarding long period of incarceration. It is a fact that the petitioner is in custody since last 3 years 6 months and out of 22 listed witnesses, the prosecution could examine only 6 witnesses. While rejecting the earlier bail application, the merit of the case and the nature of acquisition brought against the petitioner was well discussed by this Court and a direction was given to the learned Sessions Judge to examine the vital/relevant witnesses within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of 4/6 months so that the probability of hampering or tampering with the vital witnesses and other independent witnesses may not be there. Page No.# 5/6 17. But it is seen from the submission made by the learned counsel as well as from the records that after the said direction passed on 07.01.2026, the prosecution could examine only one witness, that too on the application made by the petitioner. Further it cannot be denied that the learned Sessions Judge also took all endeavour and accordingly a list was prepared and direction was made to the prosecution to bring the witnesses, preferably the vital/relevant witnesses within a reasonable period of time. But inspite of the said specific and strict direction of the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution could not bring any witness except one witness, who is also not relevant to the prosecution case. 18. From the submission of the learned Addl. PP as well as from the record it is seen that there are materials against the present petitioner, who is also involved in the conspiracy, though he is not directly shot at the deceased at the time of the offence. Those materials were already discussed in detail, while rejecting the earlier bail application. But it is surprising that inspite of a direction of this Court and strict direction of the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution is reluctant and could only bring one witness, even after the lapse of 8 months. Thus the probability of conclusion of the trial within a reasonable period cannot be expected at this stage and in the meantime it is seen that the accused petitioner is in custody for more than 3 years 6 months. 19. So, considering all these aspect of the case and the stage of the trial, it is seen that further delay in the trial would vitiate the statutory right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to get the order of speedy trial and as such, this bail application of the petitioner is accepted. 20. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner, namely, Haren Patgiri, shall be released on bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 200/2023 arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 2479/2022 registered under Sections 392/302/396/34/120(B) IPC read with Section 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees Page No.# 6/6 One Lakh) only, with 2 (two) sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, without prior permission. 21. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant