Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010206742026 2026:GAU-AS:14482 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2912/2026 UJJAL KONWAR S/O LT INDRESWAR KONWAR R/O BORLAIPULI GAON PO KADAMONI PS BORDUBI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B HALDAR, MS S. BASAK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 59(T) of 2015 arising out of Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 52 of 2013 registered under Section 302 of the IPC. Page No.# 2/3 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned trial Court upon conclusion of the trial in connection with Sessions Case No. 59(T) of 2015. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 208/2022 before this Court. Upon conclusion of hearing of the said criminal appeal, this Court, vide judgment and order dated 21.07.2026 set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court for recording the evidence of the petitioner's wife and for fresh examination of the petitioner under Section 313 of the CrPC. In the said judgment and order, this Court had permitted the petitioner to approach the learned trial Court for grant of bail and directed the learned trial Court to decide the same on its own merits. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a bail application before the learned trial Court, which vide order dated 10.08.2026 rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner's wife was yet to be examined and that there was a possibility of the petitioner influencing her. Thereafter, the petitioner's wife was examined by the learned trial Court and discharged. Subsequently, the petitioner again moved an application for bail before the learned trial Court. However, vide order dated 02.09.2026 the learned trial Court rejected the said bail application after considering the materials available on record and on the gravity of the offence. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 302 of the IPC have been set aside and that the petitioner was on bail throughout the period of trial. 5. Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam on the other Page No.# 3/3 hand submits that although the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner have been set aside, the learned trial Court, upon consideration of the entire materials available on record rightly rejected the bail application. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, more so in view of the fact that the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court for examination of the petitioner's wife and that certain further proceedings are required to be undertaken by the learned trial Court which may take some time as well as the fact that the petitioner is required to prepare his case, this Court is inclined to allow the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when called for, (ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witnesses; and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave his place of residence without the prior permission of the Investigating Officer. 7. Accordingly, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant