Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010060532026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./885/2026 ANIL PEGU AND 4 ORS S/O KADANG PEGU R/O VILL- RAKUT KEMERE, P.O. RATANPUR,P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM 2: SRI HIREN KUTUM S/O SRI BONSHI KUTUM R/O VILL- RAKUT KEMERE P.O. RATANPUR P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 3: SRI FALGUNI PEGU S/O GUBINADA PEGU R/O VILL- RAKUT KEMERE P.O. RATANPUR P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 4: SRI UTPAL PEGU S/O BAPARAM PEGU R/O VILL- RAKUT KEMERE P.O. RATANPUR P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 5: SRI BIKASH PEGU Page No.# 2/6 S/O SRI JIVA KANTA PEGU R/O VILL- RAKUT KEMERE P.O. RATANPUR P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI, MR B DEORI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 08.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. B. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Anil Pegu, (2) Sri Hiren Kutum, (3) Sri Falguni Pegu, (4) Sri Utpal Pegu and (5) Sri Bikash Pegu, who are detained behind bars. 3. The first four petitioners, namely, (1) Anil Pegu, (2) Sri Hiren Kutum, (3) Sri Falguni Pegu, (4) Sri Utpal Pegu behind are bars since Page No.# 3/6 12.11.2025, whereas the petitioner No. 5, namely, Sri Bikash Pegu is behind bars since 06.08.2025 in connection with Sessions Case No. T1- 13/2025 pending before the Court of Session Judge, Dhemaji. The corresponding P. S. case is Jonai P. S. Case No. 37/2025. The charges against them are framed under Section 103(2) of the BNS, 2023. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.05.2025, one Smt. Ajanta Kutum, had lodged an FIR, before the Officer-In-Charge of Jonai Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR, (including the present petitioners) had assaulted the husband of the informant on 02.05.2025 near Rakut Kemere Primary School, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. Later on, the husband of the first informant succumbed to his injuries. 5. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the present petitioners and 8 other accused persons under Sections 61(2)/189(2)/103(2) of the BNS, 2023. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were not arrested during the course of investigation. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 surrendered before the trial court on 12.11.2025, whereas the petitioner No.5, namely, Sri Bikash Pegu was arrested on 06.08.2025. He submits that though, the charges was laid against 13 numbers of accused persons, however, remaining 8 accused persons were already granted bail. He submits that some of the accused persons were granted bail by this Court during the course of the investigation on 12.06.2025 in Bail Application No. 1705/2025. He submits that the Page No.# 4/6 petitioners also stand on same footing like that of those accused persons, who are already on bail. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the trial and their custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. They are ready to abide by any condition put by this Court while granting bail to them 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioners. He submits that all the aforementioned petitioners did not cooperate during the investigation and evaded the course of justice during investigation. He further submits that the other accused persons, who are on bail, were not granted bail during the course of investigation, considering the progress made in the investigation. He also submits that the present petitioners stands on a different footing from that of those petitioners who are already granted bail. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent also submits that there are at least three independent witnesses, namely, Prabhat Pegu, Boga Kutum and Kanak Pegu, who have been already examined. He also submits that the complainant Smt. Ajanta Kutum has not yet been examined. 10. He further submits that considering the incriminating materials against the present petitioners they may not be allowed to go on Page No.# 5/6 bail before examination of the above-mentioned four witnesses, as they hail from same locality and there is every possibility that if they are released, they may try to influence the witnesses. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent also submits that on an earlier occasion, the petitioners also approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, however, the same was rejected by this Court after perusal of the case diary. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also have gone through the materials available on record. 13. On perusal of the records, it appears that there are incriminating materials against the present petitioners and they have been specifically implicated by at least two witnesses, who are shown as eye- witnesses in the charge sheet. Out of those two witnesses, one, namely, Kanak Pegu has already been examined as an eye-witness. 14. It also appears that other eye-witness mentioned in the charge sheet, namely, Sri Boga Kutum is yet to be examined. 15. Considering the submissions, the said witness, which was recorded under Section 180 of the BNS, 2023 as well as considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the incriminating evidence of the said eye-witness against the above-named petitioners, it may not be Page No.# 6/6 proper to release the petitioners at this stage before examination of the said eye-witness, namely, Sri Boga Kutum. 16. The prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected at this stage. 17. The Trial Court is directed to make an endeavor to examine Sri Boga Kutum (remaining witness) as early as possible. After examination of the said eye-witness, the petitioners may approach the Trial Court for seeking bail in this case. 18. This bail application is, accordingly, rejected at this stage with the above observations. JUDGE Comparing Assistant