Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010289162025 2026:GAU-AS:883 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4148/2025 PRANAB DHAR ALIAS BAPAN AND 6 ORS SON OF PARIMAL DHAR,RESIDENT OF NO. 1 CHARAGAON,P.S. BIJNI,DISTRICT CHIRANG BTR, ASSAM. 2: AMIR ALI SON OF MOYAN ALI RESIDENT OF PUB-KHAMARPARA P.S. BIJNI DISTRICT CHIRANG BTR ASSAM. 3: MD LAL CHAN ALI SON OF USHMAN ALI RESIDENT OF PUB-KHAMARPARA P.S. BIJNI DISTRICT CHIRANG BTR ASSAM. 4: NUR CHAND ALI SON OF LATE HABIBUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF PUB-KHAMARPARA P.S. BIJNI DISTRICT CHIRANG BTR ASSAM. 5: BAREK ALI SON OF LATE MOJID ALI RESIDENT OF PUB-KHAMARPARA P.S. BIJNI DISTRICT CHIRANG BTR Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM. 6: RAJIB TARAFDAR SON OF LATE NITYANANDA TARAFDAR RESIDENT OF NO. 1 CHARAGAON P.S. BIJNI DISTRICT CHIRANG BTR ASSAM. 7: ARPAN TARAFDAR ALIAS KAILA SON OF AJOY TARAFDAR RESIDENT OF NO. 1 CHARAGAON P.S. BIJNI DISTRICT CHIRANG BTR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 27.01.2026 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This subsequent bail application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the Page No.# 3/5 accused petitioners namely, (i) Pranab Dhar @ Bapan (ii) Amir Ali (iii) Md. Lal Chan Ali (iv) Nur Chand Ali (v) Barek Ali (vi) Rajib Tarafdar (vii) Arpan Tarafdar @ Kaila, have prayed for bail in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 108/2025 under Section 103(1) of BNS, added Section 103(2)/61(2)/238 of BNS, 2023. 3. The petitioners were arrested on 06.10.2025 in connection with this case. 4. The case arose out of an FIR dated 25.09.2025 lodged by the brother of the deceased with the allegation that on the previous date some passengers hired his Vehicle, bearing Registration No. AS14 H 6766. But on the next morning, he came to know that his brother was killed by some miscreants and his dead body was left along with the vehicle. The petitioners were arrested during investigation. 5. This is a subsequent bail petition as the earlier bail petition was rejected on 18.12.2025 in BA/3549/2025 after perusal of the case diary. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meantime, the investigation stands completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted and therefore, he renews his prayer for bail for the petitioners in this subsequent petition. 6. Referring to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 626, the learned counsel submits that as the investigation has been completed resulting in a charge-sheet, not much purpose would be served by continuing the detention of the Page No.# 4/5 petitioners and it is also submitted in this regard that they shall be fully available for the trial and abide by any condition imposed. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to para 64 of the said judgment which may be reproduced herein below – “64. We have already noticed the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on this application, seeking bail in the main judgment. The appellant-petitioner was arrested on 5-11-2013, when he appeared before CBI in response to the summons. Since then the appellant-petitioner has been in custody. The supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by CBI in the Court of ACJM, Ahmedabad in January 2014. After the charge-sheet being filed, obviously, the appellant-petitioner is no longer required for further investigation. Mr Rohatgi has rightly pointed out that there is no likelihood of the appellant-petitioner tampering with the evidence as the copies of all the sensitive statements have not been supplied to the appellant-petitioner.” 7. After completion of the investigation, the case resulted in a charge-sheet on 22.12.2025 vide C.S. No. 137/2025 against all the seven accused persons/petitioners herein under Sections 103(2)/238(a)/61(2) BNS and the has been committed. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has indicated that the alleged homicide was a contract killing. It is submitted by the prosecution that despite the completion of the investigation there are concerns regarding the trial and evidence and therefore, the prosecution is opposed to the grant of bail at this stage. Page No.# 5/5 9. I have given consideration to the submissions of both the sides and perused the materials. 10. On perusing the charge-sheet, I find that 33 (thirty three) witnesses listed therein. As per the postmortem report, death was due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation. As per the investigation materials, the accused persons have been implicated in the alleged offence of murder of the informant’s brother. As already stated as many as 33 (thirty three) witnesses have been listed in the charge-sheet and the trial has not yet commenced. 11. It is stated in the investigation materials that Pranab Dhar, one of the accused had a past relationship with the wife of the deceased before her marriage to the deceased and motivated by jealousy and revenge, Pranab Dhar planned a murder and gave a contract of killing to the other accused persons to kill the deceased/Raju Banik. 12. Considering the serious incriminating materials revealed during the investigation; the significant number of witnesses listed in the charge-sheet and the fact that evidence has not yet commenced – I find force in the contention of the prosecution that the bail should not be granted at this stage. 13. In such view of the matter, the instant bail petition stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant