Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8159 (GAU)

SRI SARAT HIRA AND 4 ORS. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./1460/2026 · 2026-06-14

Mitali Thakuria

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010108542026 2026:GAU-AS:8488 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1460/2026 SRI SARAT HIRA AND 4 ORS. S/O. SRI KRIAHNA KANTA DAS 2: SRI KUSHAL DAS S/O. SRI BIREN DAS 3: SRI BAKUL DAS S/O. SRI BHARAT DAS 4: SRI NAYAN DAS S/O. SRI JINTU DAS 5: SRI TARJAN DAS ALIAS SRI TILAK DAS S/O. LATE RAJEN DAS ALL ARE R/O. VILL JHARIKUCHI P.O DIGARU P.S SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR. TAPOBRAT CHHETRI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 15-06-2026 Heard Mr. A Ganguly, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R J Baruah, 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, with prayer for bail as the petitioners are behind bars since 20.04.2026 in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 25/2026 u/s 103(1)/126(2)/189(1)/191(2)/191(3)/238 of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ganguly, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, these petitioners are also not the FIR named accused and after coming to know about the incident they themselves appeared before the police station being asked and then only they got arrested and sent for judicial custody. Police never sought for police remand for these petitioners and till date they are in 57 days in judicial custody. But, during the entire period the police did not interrogate them even inside the jail premises. However, all the petitioners are ready and willing to extend their cooperation in further investigation of this case, if they are granted with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and Page No.# 3/4 submitted that it is the subsequent bail application wherein the earlier bail application was rejected as for the present petitioners and he also submitted that it is a very serious nature of case wherein a 19 years old boy had lost his life due to mob attack only because he came to meet his girlfriend on the night of that occurrence. Mr. Baruah further submitted that the investigation is still under process and hence further custodial interrogation may be necessary for the purpose of investigation. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and and case records and without going into detail of the merit of the case, it is seen that I/O got sufficient opportunity to interrogate them keeping them in custody for 57 days and hence further custodial detention may not be required for the purpose of investigation. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/petitioners may be granted with the privilege of bail. 7. 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] Sri Sarat Hira [2] Sri Kushal Das [3] Sri Bakul Das [4] Sri Nayan Das and [5] Sri Tarjan Das @ Sri Tilak Das 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/them from disclosing such Page No.# 4/4 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