Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010068282026 2026:GAU-AS:14053 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./964/2026 RAJESH NONIA ALIAS RAJESH NUNIA ALIAS RAJEN S/O LATE BHOLA NUNIA, R/O VILL NIVIA BAZAR, PS RATABARI, DIST SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, A MISHRA,MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. F L MIZO(INFORMANT),MR JITENDRA DAS(INFORMANT),MR. SAILENDRA DEKA(INFORMANT) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 23.09.2026. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the informant. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Rajesh Nonia @ Rajesh Nunia @ Page No.# 2/6 Rajen, who is in custody w.e.f. 29.09.2025, in connection with P.R.C. Case No. 2141/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1343/2025, under Sections 103(1)/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, arising out of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 163/2025. The scanned TCR along with supplementary charge sheet along with the statement of the victims/injured have already been received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the entire dispute arose between two groups for a temporary shop and both the parties sustained injuries in the said incident and both sides, accordingly filed cross-cases against each other and in both the cases, the charge sheets have already been submitted. He further submitted that there are allegations and counter- allegations of assault. However, in the present case against the petitioner, there is addition of charge of murder and subsequently Section 103 of the BNS has been added in the case. Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submitted that after filing of the earlier charge sheet, a prayer was made before the learned CJM, Sribhumi for further investigation of the case, as some of the victims were not examined during the earlier investigation. On the basis of which subsequent investigation was done and subsequent charge sheet was also filed along with the statements of the victim as well as their injury reports. He further submitted that these things will be part of the record and at the time of hearing, the matter can be considered. However, at this stage, the petitioner is in custody since 29.09.2025 i.e. almost a year the petitioner is in custody. But the case is still at the appearance stage, because some of the co-accused are still absconding and Page No.# 3/6 their attendance could not procured till date. Thus, the case also could not commit by the learned Trial Court below due to absconding of some of the co- accused. He further submitted that from the charge sheet filed against the informant’s side also it is seen that there is an incident of group fighting wherein the petitioner side also sustained injuries and on the basis of which the charge sheet was also filed against the informant and others. He further submitted that it is not a case that there is an allegation of unilateral aggression only on the part of the petitioner’s side but both the parties were involved in the alleged incident. It is the further submission of the accused petitioner’s counsel that the case against the present accused petitioner could not be committed till date and hence, the completion of trial will take a considerable period and hence, considering the long period of incarceration, the prayer for bail may be considered. However, the accused petitioner being the local person of the addressed locality, he will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed by the Court. Mr. S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in this regard that on the basis of the order passed by the learned CJM, Sribhumi, the subsequent investigation was done and accordingly, some of the victims statements were recorded and their injury reports were also collected at the stage of subsequent investigation. From the supplementary charge sheet as well as from the injury report and the statement of the victims, it also reveals that the accused petitioner not only committed murder of a person but they also assaulted the victims with sharp object for which the victims were hospitalized for a reasonable period. Mr. Deka further submitted that the earlier criminal antecedents are also there against the present accused petitioner and they were also involved in burning of a police out post and the trial of the said case is still Page No.# 4/6 going on. As per the note of the I.O., the accused petitioner along with co- accused are the trouble makers of the locality and hence, there is every chance of hampering with the trial proceeding and tampering with the evidence of the witnesses, if the accused petitioner is allowed to go on bail. Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam also raised objection and submitted that some of the co-accused who are the brothers of the present accused petitioner are still absconding and chances of tampering with the evidence of the other witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage, considering their previous conduct. Accordingly, she raise objection and submitted that only considering the period of long incarceration, bail prayer cannot be considered at this stage. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record as well as the supplementary charge sheet along with the statement of the victims/injured, recorded by the I.O. at the time of subsequent investigation. Initially the case was investigated and charge sheeted against the present accused petitioner along with other co-accused persons, wherein the allegations of grievous hurt and murder were brought against them. But the learned CJM, Sribhumi, on perusal of the record and on the submissions made by the informant side found that statements of some of the vital witnesses of the prosecution i.e. the injured victims were not recorded by the I.O., for which subsequent investigation was done by the I.O., on the basis of which the supplementary charge sheet also filed against the accused petitioner. Page No.# 5/6 From the record as well as the charge sheet of both the cases, it is seen that there are dispute between the parties for a temporary shop house, where both the parties were involved in altercation and group fighting, out of which both the parties sustained injuries on their persons. However, the informant side sustained more grievous injuries and one person died out of said incident. But as submitted by Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner, it is not a case of unilateral aggression by one side. Rather, the incident had happened due to quarrel and group fighting between two groups. During the submission made by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam as well as the informant side, it is seen that another case is pending against the present accused petitioner along with other co-accused, wherein the grievous allegation of arsoning a police out post is also brought against them and the case is still pending for disposal. Thus, it is seen that some criminal antecedents are there against the present accused petitioner and other co-accused. But it is seen that the present accused petitioner is behind the bar for almost one year i.e. from 29.09.2025 and till date, the case is at the stage of appearance, as three other co-accused are still absconding and did not surrender before the learned Trial Court below. However, it is submitted by Mr. Deka, the learned counsel for the informant that the said absconder accused persons are the own brothers of the present accused petitioner and thus, in spite of his knowledge of the pending of the case, he did not take any initiative for surrender of those co-accused. There may be relationship between the co- accused and the present accused petitioner but the fact remains that the case is still in the stage of committal and due to absence of the co-accused, the case could not be committed till date. There are sufficient numbers of witnesses cited Page No.# 6/6 by the prosecution and hence, it is seen that the completion of the trial within a reasonable period cannot be expected at this stage, though the accused petitioner is behind the bar almost one year since is date of arrest. So without going detail into the other aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the accused petitioner may not be justified. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Sribhumi, the accused petitioner, namely, Rajesh Nonia @ Rajesh Nunia @ Rajen, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) 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; (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Sribhumi, without prior permission, and (iii) that the petitioner shall submit copy of his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned CJM, Sribhumi. In terms of above, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant