Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010076682026 2026:GAU-AS:6383 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1079/2026 PRABHAT DAS ALIAS PRAVAT CH DAS S/O LATE KAMALA DAS, R/O VILL BOGORIGURI, PS JAJORI, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 11.05.2026. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Nawaz, learned engaged counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, 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, Prabhat Das @ Pravat Ch. Das who is in jail since 24.01.2026, in connection with Sessions (T-1) Case No.13(N)/2026 (corresponding with the Jajori P.S. Case No. 58/2024), under Sections 103(1) of the BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaon. The TCR along with case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case was registered and charge sheeted under Sections 103 of the BNS, 2023, without making a detail inquiry by the I.O. He further submitted that at the time of examination, the victim was tested positive with alcohol 0.2615, which is a high dose of alcohol at the time of her examination. More so, it is submitted by Mr. Misra, the learned counsel that there is no exact cause of death of the victim and the only allegation is that the accused petitioner kicked her and at that time she had telephonic conversations with two witnesses, namely, Dulumoni Das and Kanaklata Das. Thus at the time of her telephonic conversation with these two witnesses, the victim was alive and hence, it cannot be stated that the cause of death of the victim was only due to the injury sustained by her, where the present accused petitioners is alleged to give a kick to her. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused petitioner is in the custody for last 107 days, the charge sheet has already furnished to the accused and the charge also framed against him and hence, further custodial detention of the present accused petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of trial of the case. That apart, it is not yet confirmed as to whether the cause of the death of the victim was due to the alleged assault, made by the present accused petitioner. However, the accused petitioner being a permanent Page No.# 3/4 resident of the addressed locality, he is ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date, to be fixed by the Court. Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that admittedly the case is charge sheeted and the charge is also framed under Sections 103(1) of the BNS, 2023. He further submitted that there are as many as 19 numbers of cited prosecution witnesses, out of which two witnesses, namely, Dulumoni Das and Kanaklata Das are vital witnesses who evidence is important for the trial. He further submitted that these two witnesses, before whom the victim narrated about the incident of quarrel and also alleged that the accused petitioner had kicked her. He further submitted that from the post mortem report also it reveals that the death was caused as a result of hemorrhage and shock for the injuries sustained by the victim in her pelvic region including the uterus and the fallopian tubes. He further submitted that at the time of telephonic conversation of the victim with those two witnesses, the victim was admittedly alive but thereafter, due to internal hemorrhage, she died with is also reveals from the post mortem report. Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam further submitted that without going detail into the merit of the case, it is submitted by him that till the recording of the evidence of the above named two witnesses is recorded, the bail prayer of the present accused petitioner may not be considered at this stage, as there is probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of these two witnesses. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR, the statement made by the witnesses as well as the post mortem report. Page No.# 4/4 Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and the materials available on record, this Court is of opinion that the above referred two witnesses are the most vital witnesses to the prosecution case and the probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of these two witnesses also cannot be denied and in view of this, this Court is of the opinion that till recording the evidence of the two witnesses, namely, Dulumoni Das and Kanaklata Das, the bail prayer made by the accused petitioner may not be considered. Accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected. However, it is seen that there are 19 numbers of prosecution witnesses and hence, the learned Trial Court is herby directed to record the evidence of the two vital witnesses, namely, Dulumoni Das and Kanaklata Das along with the Medical Officer, within a reasonable period and preferably within two months from this order. In terms of above, all these bail applications stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant