Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010079672026 2026:GAU-AS:5711 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1084/2026 RAHUL RABHA AND ANR S/O LATE PRABIN RABHA R/O BAMUNI GAON P.S. CHAIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: DHANJIT SARANIA S/O SHANTI RAM SARANIA R/O AKNIA P.S. GHOGRAPAR DIST. NALBARI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 27-04-2026 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. U U Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for bail of the accused/petitioners who were arrested in connection with this case on 13.03.2026 and since then they were in the jail in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 141/2026 u/s 117(2)/109/304(2)/3(5) of BNS. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Khan that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. Rather, these two petitioners took the victim in hospital immediately after the said offence. He further submitted that the accused/petitioners are in custody since last 46 days and considering their length of detention, they may be released on bail. 4. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that their earlier bail application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after perusal of the Case Diary and he insisted to call for the Case Diary. 5. Hearing the submission made by learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the order passed by the learned Court below, it is seen that there is no serious type of injury sustained by the victim. Apart from that it is seen that the petitioners are in custody since last 46 days and hence the IO got sufficient opportunity to interrogate them keeping them in custody and hence find that further custodial interrogation is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. Further, considering the materials available in the Page No.# 3/3 case records and also considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioners, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M). The accused/petitioners, namely [1] Rahul Rabha and [2] Dhanjit Sarania, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant