Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010023032026 2026:GAU-AS:1882 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./372/2026 RAJEN NONIA SON OF LATE BHOLA PRASHAD NONIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIVIA BAZAR PO OLIVIACHERRA PS RATABARI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MS S MOCHAHARI,MR. S DUTTA,MS K BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Das, the learned counsel for the informant who appeared and filed his Vakalatnama and Ms. A. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Page No.# 2/3 appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 29.09.2025 in connection with Ratabari P.S. Case No. 163/2025 u/s 109/117(118(2)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS and subsequently added Section 103(1) of BNS. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta that the present accused/petitioner is in custody since 136 days. Case has already been charge-sheeted after completion of the investigation and hence at this stage there cannot be any question of hampering or tampering investigation if the accused/petitioner is released on bail. However he will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed and contest the case accordingly. He is the permanent resident of his addressed locality and hence there is no chance of absconding rather he will provide sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. Ms. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that one person is brutally killed in the present case wherein the present accused/petitioner is also involved. There are sufficient eye-witnesses to the prosecution and hence there is probability of hampering or tampering of witnesses, if the accused/petitioner is released on bail. She further submitted that the accused/petitioner has previous antecedent wherein in the Forwarding Report it has been mentioned that in the year 2018 he along with other persons had tried to set fire in police station and if the accused/petioner is released on bail there will be probability of hampering or tampering the witnesses, especially the eye-witnesses. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I Page No.# 3/3 have also perused the case records and it is seen that the accused/petitioner has other criminal background and tried to set fire to the Nivia W.P. in the year 2018 for which he was arrested and forwarded before the learned Court below. Thus, the probability of hampering or tampering the witnesses of the prosecution as submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor cannot be out rightly denied at this case. 7. Considering the nature of allegation as well as the previous record of criminal antecedent of the present accused/petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the present accused/petitioner at this stage and hence the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant