Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010074222026 2026:GAU-AS:6282 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1052/2026 BIJOY PATNAYAK ALIAS BIJU SON OF SHRI DIBA PATNAYAK R/O BAISHAHABI, T.E. PURNA LINE, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, MS. A K CHOPHI,J SINGPHO,A GHOSAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 07.05.2026. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Boraq, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail Page No.# 2/4 to the accused petitioner, namely, Bijoy Patnayak @ Biju, who is facing trial from Jail in connection with Sessions Case No. 183/2025 (corresponding to Mariani P.S. Case No.136/2025), under Sections 329(4)/109(1)/118(2)/103(1) of the BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat. The scanned copy of the TCR along with the case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused petitioner is in the custody for last 7 months 15 days, when he got arrested in connection with the case on 21.09.2025. The charge sheet has already been filed, charges are framed and till date 4 witnesses, out of 20 numbers of cited witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution, including the informant, victims and eye witness of the incident. Thus the vital witnesses of the prosecution have already been examined and hence, there cannot be any question of hampering or tampering with the evidence of the other witnesses. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submitted that as the vital witnesses of the incident have already been examined when the accused petitioner is behind the bar, he could not take proper defence in the examination of those witnesses. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date, to be fixed by the Court and there is no flight risk of the present petitioner, as he is the permanent resident of the addressed locality. Ms. Bora, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that there are sufficient evidence as to how the present accused petitioner had committed murder of a person and injuring two other persons by assaulting with sharp Page No.# 3/4 weapon. She further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses, examined so far brought sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused petitioner and their evidence could not demolish by the defence, while cross- examining them. She further submitted that the wife of one of the injured, namely, one Puspa Nayak is yet to be examined who is also one of the eye witnesses and probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of the said eye witness also cannot be denied at this stage. She accordingly submitted that considering the nature of offence and the manner under which he committed the offence, the present petition for bail may not be considered at this stage. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the case record and the case diary. It is seen that 20 number of witnesses have been listed in the charge sheet and out of them, 4 witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution, including the informant, victims and eye witness of the incident, within a very reasonable period. The present accused petitioner is in the custody for more than 7 months, since he got arrested in connection with the case on 21.09.2025. Thus, it is seen that the vital prosecution witnesses has already been examined. But it is seen that one of the eye witness, namely, Puspa Nayak who is wife of one of the victim is yet to be examined. In view of these and considering the efforts made by the learned Trial Court, I do not find it to be justified to allow the petitioner to go on bail at this stage and accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected. However, the learned Trial Court is herby directed to examine the remaining eye Page No.# 4/4 witnesses including Puspa Nayak, within a short period, preferably within two months from this order. In terms of above, all these bail applications stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant