Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010146692026 2026:GAU-AS:14052 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1991/2026 SULTAN AHMED AND ANR S/O SHAFIQUR RAHMAN, R/O VILLAGE KAMARBOND, P.S. PATHARKANDI, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. 2: BODRUJ JAMAN @ BODRUL S/O FAKAR UDDIN R/O VILLAGE DURLABHPUR P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 23-09-2026 Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Sultan Ahmed and (ii) Bodruj Jaman @ Bodrul who were arrested in connection with Sessions Case No. 177/2025 arising out of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 87/2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/14(2) with added Section 103(1)/238 (a) of BNS, 2023. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received and perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel that the petitioners are in custody since last more than 1 year 4 months and till date they are in custody for 513 days. The case has already been charge sheeted on 09.07.2025, but out of 17 listed witnesses, the prosecution could examine only two numbers of witnesses till date. On the last occasion also no witness turned up and the next date is fixed on 12.10.2026. 5. He further submitted that these two petitioners got arrested in connection with this case only on the basis of the statement made by one Makbub, the co-accused of this case and that apart, there is no such incriminating materials against the present petitioners, though they were arrested in connection with this case. 6. He further submitted that there is no lapses on the part of the defence, though the prosecution could only examine two witnesses out of 17 listed witnesses. Thus, the completion of the entire trial cannot be expected within a reasonable period, though the petitioners are in custody for more than 1 year 4 months. So considering this aspect of the case, the petitioners may be allowed to go on bail and they being the permanent residents of their addressed locality, they will appear before the learned Sessions Judge as and when, the case is fixed for hearing. 7. Mr. Choudhury further submitted in context with monetary transactions that though the allegation was brought against the present petitioners, but the prosecution could not collect any relevant documents to substantiate the plea that due to monetary transactions or on that grudge, the victim/minor boy was murdered by the present petitioners. Page No.# 3/4 8. Ms. Borah, learned APP raised objection and submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners and from the charge sheet also it is seen that on the basis of some CDR analysis, these two petitioners got arrested in connection with this case and during the entire investigation, it has come out that there was some monetary transactions between the parties and only on that grudge, the 12 years old boy was brutally killed by these two petitioners with conspiracy with another co-accused persons. 9. She further submitted that from the evidence of PW-1 and the statement made in the FIR, it is seen that there are some other vital witnesses to the prosecution case, who are yet to be examined by the prosecution and considering the nature of the allegation, the probability of tempering with the evidence of other witnesses cannot be denied at this stage. 10. She further submitted that considering the heinous nature of the crime, bail may not be granted on the basis of the period of incarceration. Ms. Borah, accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that this bail petition may not be considered at this stage. 11. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the TCR and the case record. 12. It is a fact that on the basis of the statement of one of the co-accused, Makbub, the other two petitioners got arrested in connection with this case. But during the investigation as revealed from the record as well as from the charge sheet sufficient incriminating materials were collected by the I.O. against these two petitioners and on the basis of the which, the charge sheet was also filed against them. 13. Further, it is seen that there was a monetary transactions between the parties, wherein the father of the deceased was also involved in dealing with some business of drug along with the accused persons. On that monetary grudge only the petitioners had committed the offence wherein 12 year old minor boy was allegedly killed by Page No.# 4/4 these two petitioners. 14. It is an admitted fact that till date the prosecution could only examine only two witnesses, though the petitioners are behind the bar since last 1 year 4 months. But considering the nature of the offence, as alleged against the petitioners, the bail prayer cannot be considered at this stage, only considering the long period of incarceration, wherein the accused petitioners allegedly committed the heinous offence of murder. More so, considering the nature and character of the accused petitioners the probability of tempering with the evidence of vital witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. 15. In view of above and considering all the aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that bail cannot be granted at this stage only considering the long period of incarceration wherein the allegation of heinous offence is brought against them. 16. This bail application accordingly stands rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant