Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010279682025 2026:GAU-AS:49 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4156/2025 DEWAN BASKEY @ RAJIB BASKEY S/O-LATE FUDAN BASKEY, VILL.-AMGURI, DABLAIGAON, P.S.- KOKRAJHAR, DIST.-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783376 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED, T UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 05.01.2026 Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying Page No.# 2/3 for granting bail to the accused-petitioner, namely, Dewan Baskey @ Rajib Baskey, in connection with Sessions (T-1) Case No. 78/2019, under Sections 365/302/2021 of IPC, arising out of Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.387/2016, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar. The petitioner is stated to have been arrested on 25.06.2025 on the strength of NBWA issued by the learned trial court and presently, he is in jail custody. 3. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was initially arrested in connection with this case on 30.07.2016 and thereafter, he was granted bail vide order dated 31.10.2016 and subsequently, he also submitted bail bonds before the learned Court below to continue on previous bail which was allowed and accepted. It is stated and submitted that in between the two waves of COVID-19 pandemic intervened and thereafter, the petitioner also went to Gujarat for his livelihood, as he belongs to a poor family. It is submitted that initially though the learned counsel on his behalf had taken steps but, subsequently, there was some miscommunication and no steps came to be submitted on his behalf leading the learned Court below to issue an NBWA. 4. I have perused the copy of the certified copy vide order dated 31.10.2025 certified to be true by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said order has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge/trial Court observing that petitioner has been absent since 01.02.2023 causing delay in the trial and therefore, his bail petition was rejected. 5. Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. submits that his absence also contributed to delay in the trial. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is willing to participate in the trial and may be given an opportunity. Since, the relevant documents have been annexed with the petition, therefore, I find it possible to dispose it off at this stage. Page No.# 3/3 6. Considering the undertaking on behalf of the accused and also keeping in mind that the other co-accused have already facing the trial; therefore, allowing the petitioner to go on bail at this stage might facilitate progress of the trial. 7. In such view of the matter, the accused is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Court and subject to the following conditions:- (i) The accused/petitioner shall be available for the trial. (ii) He shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. (iii) He shall not try to influence witnesses or the informant side. 8. In case of violation of bail conditions, the bail would be liable to be cancelled. 9. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant