Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010013192026 2026:GAU-AS:1482 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./219/2026 RAJIB BORUAH S/O SRI PURANDRA BORUAHR/O VILL- GOHAI GAON P.S. SAPEKHATI, DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,MISS. P M AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 04.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Page No.# 2/5 Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, Rajib Boruah, has prayed for bail in connection with Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 13/26 under Section 281/105/125(b)/324(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. The accused was arrested on 16.01.2026 based on an FIR dated 15.01.2026 lodged by Dipak Kumar Sarma with the allegation that in the morning his elder brother Brajen Sarma and Tiju Munda were proceeding on a Mahendra Zeto vehicle and on the way, a vehicle bearing No. AR-01-L- 0947 coming from opposite direction in high speed in rash and negligent manner collided with said vehicle whereupon, the driver and informant’s elder brother sustained injuries and the informant’s brother died. 4. The case diary has been received. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing my attention to order of learned court below, submits that in the accident, the petitioner also sustained injuries. The statement of the driver and one of the victims namely Tiju Munda is available in which he stated about the vehicle was coming from the front side in high speed in careless manner and hitting their vehicle. 6. I have seen the progress of investigation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that in the statement of accused/petitioner, he states that, on the contrary, it is the other vehicle which was coming in high speed. It is submitted that though the driver has stated about negligence, but from the overall materials is not clear as to whether it is a case of mere negligence or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 7. The aspect of negligence vis-à-vis culpable homicide not amounting Page No.# 3/5 to murder was gone into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648. The relevant para may be reproduced herein below- ”41. Rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. As a matter of law— in view of the provisions of IPC—the cases which fall within the last clause of Section 299 but not within clause “Fourthly” of Section 300 may cover the cases of rash or negligent act done with the knowledge of the likelihood of its dangerous consequences and may entail punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC. Section 304-A IPC takes out of its ambit the cases of death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act amounting to culpable homicide of either description.” 8. Road accidents are highly avoidable human tragedy, leading to death and disability and imposes great financial burden on families also. However, from the legal perspective, some accidents may have elements of gross negligence which can be said to graduate into the domain of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, especially one attributed with knowledge. However, all accidents would not usually be in the said category and many of them would also be cases of causing death or injury by rash and negligence act punishable under 338/304 A IPC [106/125(b) of BNS]. 9. Despite the terrible human tragedy, that accidents, especially serious accidents are – police authorities at the time of registering such cases have Page No.# 4/5 to prima facie look into the aspect as to in which category the accident falls into from the point of view of penal law. Any mechanical application of penal provision pertaining to homicide in accidents cases will dilute the case of those accidents – where there is genuine element of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (attributable with knowledge of causing death). 10. In the instant case, the accident appears to be arising head on collusion. Prima facie, there appears to be some negligence though it is not clear whether there is also contributory or composite negligence of both the parties. The aspect of homicide would be matter of further investigation 11. In the facts and circumstances and also considering the length of detention as on date and the above discussion – I am of the considered view that he can be released on bail at this stage, subject to conditions. 12. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 13/26 under Section 281/105/125(b)/324(4) of BNS, 2023, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court (CJM, Dhemaji). 13. The direction for bail is further subject to the following conditions: (a) That the petitioner shall render co-operation with remaining investigation; (b) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (c) That the petitioner shall not commit any illegal activities. Page No.# 5/5 14. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 15. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. 16. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant