Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010273162025 2026:GAU-AS:896 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3980/2025 MANOJ KUMAR BARUAH S/O LT. PANCHANAN BARUAH VILL AND P.O. MOUTIPUR P.S HOWLY DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, A.ISLAM,MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 28.01.2026 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury for the petitioner Manoj Kumar Baruah who has filed his application under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 31.03.2024 in connection with Sessions Case No. 145/2024 under Sections 302/376 of the IPC arising out of Howly P.S. Case No. 41/2024 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta. 2. Heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. The FIR unfolds that the deceased Bobita Das was married to Dhrubjyoti Das, son of Nabin Chandra Das. Her husband Dhrubjyoti Das died in the year 2021 and the deceased was residing with her son and daughter. The petitioner, Ushalata Baruah and Kankan Baruah are the relatives of Dhrubjyoti Das and they have been subjecting the deceased to cruelty and they also threatened to kill the deceased for property. On 29.03.2024 at about 6 pm, Manoj Kumar Baruah called the deceased to his house and killed her with a dao in a pre-planned manner with the aid of the other two accused, Ushalata Baruah and Konkon Baruah. All the accused then abandoned the body of the deceased in the veranda and fled to their uncle, Dilip Kumar Das's house in Nahati. 4. Later, the accused named in the FIR was handed over to the police by the local residents. Dilip Kumar Das then informed David Kumar Das Page No.# 3/6 over phone that Manoj Baruah killed his sister (the deceased). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she has been behind bars for more than 1 year 10 months. Not a single witness has been examined since 20.06.2025 and the petitioner deserves bail as the Court as well as the prosecution has procrastinated the case. 5. The orders of the Court have been annexed along with the bail petition as Annexure-2 and this will clearly reflect that since 20.06.2025, not a single witness has been examined. It is also submitted that the petitioner is entitled to bail as the grounds of arrest have not been properly communicated to the petitioner. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor laid stress in his argument that the order dated 30.06.2025, passed in connection with B.A. No. 1844/2025, has dealt with the submission of the petitioner relating to the grounds of arrest being communicated to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner is alleged of a brutal and heinous offence and he was well aware of the offence he had committed and he was on the run. Thereby, the grounds of arrest were communicated was sufficient and the petitioner was well aware of the same. 7. It is further submitted that the dead body of the victim was lying in the compound and foreign particles were found inserted in her private parts. The aggressive nature of the petitioner clearly indicates that his detention is required for a fair trial. The petitioner, if enlarged, will be a threat to the public and he will thereafter have no hesitation in threatening the witnesses and will be emboldened by an order of bail. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further laid stress in his argument that the period of incarceration is case specific. In a heinous Page No.# 4/6 offence of this nature, the incarceration of the petitioner cannot be held to be a prolonged incarceration. The Court or the prosecution cannot be alleged of any inaction. Within a period of 1 year 10 months, 4 witnesses have already been examined. Truth will be unearthed only if the petitioner is behind bars. In this case, only 6 months have elapsed since 20.06.2025 within which period witnesses were not produced. Trial will be adversely affected if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. 9. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 10. As the prosecution case is before this Court, it cannot be ignored that this case is of a heinous nature considering the nature in which the body was abandoned in the premises of the house. The order dated 30.06.2025 in Manoj Kumar Baruah Vs. the State of Assam in connection with B.A. No. 1844/2025 at paragraph-9 of the order clearly reveals that the grounds of arrest have been dealt with by this Court. 11. It has been observed by this Court at paragraph 9 that:- “I have also perused the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.PC as well as the notice under Section 50A of the Cr.PC. The petitioner was informed about the case under which he was arrested and he was also informed that the offence is a non-bailable offence. The petitioner received the notice and he affixed his signature in English. The legal guardian of the petitioner has also received the notice under Section 50A of the Cr.PC. The forwarding report clearly reveals that in presence of witnesses, the petitioner had assaulted the victim and inserted foreign articles on her private parts. The victim was hacked to death by several blows with a dao on a land Page No.# 5/6 dispute.” 12. It is thereby held that notices under Section 50 of the Cr.PC as well as under Section 50A of the Cr.PC have been communicated to the petitioner which have been received by the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner has himself affixed his signature in English. 13. This Court also finds substance in the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that prolonged incarceration in different cases relies on the facts and circumstances of the offence of each case. 14. In this case, the petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2024 and forwarded to custody. It is true that the petitioner has been behind bars for almost 2 years. However, in this case, the detention of the petitioner at this juncture cannot be considered to be prolonged incarceration. Trial has commenced and 4 witnesses have already been examined. It is true that there has been a delay in examination of witnesses from 20.06.2025, but at this juncture, the petitioner is not entitled to bail considering the length of detention, which cannot be held to be prolonged incarceration at this stage. 15. The evidence and the merits of this case are not brought to the fore, at this juncture as trial is still under progress. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and after scrutinizing the entire record, it appears that trial may be adversely affected if the petitioner is at large. 16. At this juncture, this Court is hesitant to grant bail to the petitioner. Petition with prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. 17. However, the petitioner may apply for bail subsequently in the event of any procrastination of trial by the prosecution or by the Court. Page No.# 6/6 18. The bail petition stands rejected with a direction to the Court to expedite the trial for speedy disposal of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant