Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010165372026 2026:GAU-AS:13181 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2246/2026 NOKUL DAS ALIAS NAKUL DAS S/O- LATE BIREN DAS,VILL- TADANG CHAPORI,P.O.- BOGINADI,P.S.- BOGINADI,DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM,PIN-787032. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. M R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10-09-2026 Heard Mr. A Roshid, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Das, the learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Sessions Page No.# 2/4 Case No. 81(NL)/2025, U/S 103(1) BNS, 2023 pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur (Corresponding to Boginadi P.S. Case No. 16/2025). 3. Scanned TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Roshid, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present bail application is the subsequent/second bail application after rejection of the earlier bail application by this Court dated 09.02.2026. In the meantime the case has already been charge sheeted and charge has already been framed and the prosecution has also recorded 7 nos. of witnesses out of 12 cited witnesses. He further submitted that the earlier bail application was rejected on some technical ground. But, in the present petition they have not raised any technical issues, rather the prayer for bail is made only on the period of detention already undergone by the accused. 5. Mr. Roshid further submitted that the 7 nos. of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution which are the eye-witnesses and vital witnesses of the prosecution and hence at this stage there is no question of hampering or tampering with the other remaining official witnesses. Accordingly, he submitted that bail may be granted to the present petitioner and being the permanent resident of his addressed locality he will appear regularly before the learned Special Judge and will contest the case accordingly. 6. Mr. Das, the learned Addl. PP raised vehement objection and submitted that the bail petition for the present petitioner may not be considered at this stage. He further submitted that from the statement made by the eye-witnesses also it is seen that the accused/petitioner had assaulted twice in the head of the victim which sustained head injury and died due to coma for such head injuries. Page No.# 3/4 He further submitted that there are eye-witnesses and witnesses of the other family members who saw the incident and there is every chance of conviction of the present accused/petitioner. 7. Mr. Das further submitted that the trial is going on in a good pace and out of 12 nos. of witnesses, 7 witnesses have already been examined and the process for procuring attendance of remaining witnesses is also going on. Mr. Das accordingly submitted that it may not be a fit case to allow the accused to go on bail at this stage. 8. Hearing the submissions may be learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the scanned TCR which has already been received. It is an admitted fact that the earlier bail application was rejected on some technical ground as well as on the gravity of the offence. It is also considered that there are some eye-witnesses and examination of those eye- witnesses is essential and there may be probability of tampering with the eye- witnesses. But, at this point of time it is seen that after rejection of the earlier bail application dated 09.02.2026, several witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and out of 12 nos. of witnesses, 7 witnesses including the informant and eye-witnesses were already been examined by the prosecution. Thus, tampering or hampering of the evidence of the vital witnesses does not arise at this stage. However, it is a fact that the case is proceeding in good pace and within a reasonable period the learned Sessions Judge had also examined a good number of witnesses. But, 5 witnesses are yet to be examined. So considering these aspects of the case, vis-a-vis the length of detention already undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention may not be required for the purpose of trial. Page No.# 4/4 9. Considering all these aspects of this case, the bail petition filed by the present petitioner is hereby allowed. 10. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, the accused/petitioner, namely, Nakul Das @ Nakul Das, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, without prior permission. 11. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant