Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010112042026 2026:GAU-AS:8938 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1469/2026 BIJOY PATNAYAK ALIAS BIJU S/O SHRI DIBA PATNAYAK R/O BAISHAHABI, T.E. PURNA LINE, PS TEOK, DIST JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, MS. A K CHOPHI,A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 22.06.2026. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, 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 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 Page No.# 2/4 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 Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused petitioner is in the custody since 21.09.2025, when he got arrested in connection with this case and five vital witnesses of the prosecution have already been examined. He further submitted that this is a subsequent/second bail application and while disposing the earlier bail application, it was observed by this Court on the basis of the submission made by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam that one of the vital witness of the prosecution who is also eye witness is yet to be examined. On the basis of which, the earlier bail application was rejected by this Court. But on 19.05.2026, the remaining vital/eye witness of the prosecution, namely, namely, one Puspa Nayak has already been examined by the prosecution and thus, all the vital/eye witnesses have been examined except some official witnesses as well as seizure witnesses. He further submitted that the accused is in the custody for last 9 months and hence, he also need some time to prepare his defence which may be possible if he is allowed to go on bail. However, being the local resident of the addressed locality, he will appear before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date, to be fixed by the Court and contest the case accordingly. Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised objection and submitted in this Page No.# 3/4 regard that it is a fact that the PW.5, one of the eye witnesses has already been examined by the prosecution but the PW.2 and the PW.4 including the victim had implicated the accused petitioner in the present case, wherefrom it is seen that he not only killed his mother-in-law but also tried to kill two other persons including his wife. So considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the bail petition for the present accused petitioner may be rejected at this stage. Mr. Baruah further submitted that it is not a case that there was no implication from the eye witnesses/victim. Rather, they have implicated as to how the petitioner had killed his mother-in-law and also tried to kill two others. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the case record and the order passed by this Court on 07.05.2026 in BA No.1052/2026, wherein it was observed that within a reasonable time the prosecution had examined four vital/eye witnesses but one witness i.e. the PW.5 was need to be examined who is also considered to be one of the vital/eye witness to the prosecution case. But from the record, it is seen that the said eye witness is examined as PW.5 on 19.05.2026 and thus, it reveals that all the vital witnesses of the prosecution have already been examined. However, there are some other witnesses including the official witnesses as well as seizure witnesses etc., who are yet to be examined by the prosecution. So considering the earlier observation made by this Court vis-à-vis the examination of the PW.5, this Court is opinion that hampering or tampering with the eye witnesses/material witnesses does not arise at this stage. That apart, the accused person is in the custody since list nine months. Page No.# 4/4 Considering all these aspects, the accused petitioner, named above, is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only with 1 (one) surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner will submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat; and (iv) that the petitioner will not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, without prior permission. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant