Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010047082026 2026:GAU-AS:4178 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./692/2026 MANTU DAS S/O JAGGU RAM DAS VILL- DAKAKLA (MAJPARA) P.S. PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, P. KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24-03-2026 Heard Mr. A. Paramanik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 30.06.2025 in connection with Sessions Case No. 127/2023 [arising out of Palashbari P.S. Case No. 121/2023] u/s 326/302 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR along with Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Paramanik, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused/petitioner is in custody since last 267 days after he got arrested on the strength of NBWA. He further submitted that only due to some financial hardship, he along with his family went to Meghalaya to earn his livelihood and there was no intentional negligence on his part in attending Court. 5. Mr. Paramanik further submitted that out of 10 nos. of witnesses, 4 have already been examined and the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined. However, the petitioner being the local person there is no chance of absconding. Rather, he will appear regularly on each and every date to be fixed by the Court and to contest the case. He further submitted that the PW-3, the own father of the deceased did not depose anything against the present petitioner and he is not the eye-witness to the prosecution case. 6. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that out of 10 nos. of witnesses only 4 have been examined and PW-5 i.e. the doctor is stated to be examined through online, though his statement is not available in the case record. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the accused was absconding since 03.08.2023, from the date of framing of charge and subsequently on the strength of NBWA and P&A issued against him, he got Page No.# 3/3 arrested on 30.06.2025. There are many material witnesses are yet to be examined and hence the chances of hampering or tampering with the other witnesses as well as the probability of absconding of the accused/petitioner cannot be denied at this stage. Mr. Sharma accordingly raised objection and submitted that bail may not be considered at this stage. 7. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case records and the evidences so far recorded by the prosecution. It is seen that there are some incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner in the evidence of the PWs and who also led the police for discovery of the murder weapon i.e. axe, through which the murder was committed. Apart from that, it is seen that there was delay of 2 years, only for absence of the accused/petitioner, who absconded at the time of framing of charge i.e. from 03.08.2023. The Court took all endeavour to procure the attendance of the accused/petitioner and somehow on the strength of NBWA and P&A, the accused was arrested on 30.06.2025. So considering the conduct of the accused/petitioner, the probability of absconding as submitted by the learned Addl. PP cannot be out rightly rejected and apart from that, the probability of hampering or tampering with the other material witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that granting bail to the present petitioner at this stage may not be justified. Accordingly, the present petition stands rejected and dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant