Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010108262026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1423/2026 NAJIRUL ISLAM SON OF MAINUL ISLAM, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- CHAMADHARA, ERABARI, POLICE STATION- JURIA, DISTRICT NAGAON 782125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ATREYA, MR. J KONWAR,MS. C KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22-06-2026 Heard Mr. A Atreya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail for the accused/petitioner, Najirul Islam, in connection with Sessions Case No. T2/28/2025 arising out of Diphu P.S. Case Page No.# 2/3 No. 18/2025 registered under Sections 296/118(2)/109 of the BNS, 2023 pending in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. 3. The scanned copy of the TCR has been received and perused by this Court. 4. It is seen that this is a 2nd application for bail and that the earlier application for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 1737/2025. Thereafter, another bail application was also moved before the learned Sessions Judge, which was also rejected on 16.10.2025, considering the nature and gravity of the case as well as the observations made by this Court. However, at this stage, it is seen that out of the 17 (seventeen) witnesses, 10 (ten) witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution, including the victim. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no eye witness and in order to make a proper defence, the accused needs to go on bail and that he has been in custody for the last 465 days. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering his length of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail and since he is a permanent resident of Nagaon, there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the witnesses. 5. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raises objection and submits that at the time of the earlier rejection order, the charge of the case was not framed and subsequently, on 10.10.2025, the charge has been framed and 10 (ten) witnesses out of the total 17 (seventeen) witnesses have already been examined, including the victim. He further submits that the victim of the case has implicated the petitioner, who inflicted injuries to the victim on his chest and neck. Page No.# 3/3 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it is seen that the trial of the case is progressing and out of the 17 (seventeen) witnesses, 10 (ten) witnesses have already been examined, including the victim. Therefore, considering the length of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of trial. 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. The accused/petitioner, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu without prior permission. 8. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant