Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010115662026 2026:GAU-AS:8985 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1536/2026 SUMAN KALITA SON OF MAHESH CH KALITA RESIDENT OF PACHARIA PO PACHARIA PS HAJO DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 781104 PH 6002808827 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR P DOLEY,MRS J M KONWAR,MR H AGARWAL,MR. R KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of Page No.# 2/6 regular bail in connection with Latasil P.S. Case No. 36/2026, under Section 103(1)/238(a) of BNS, 2023. 3. The present case was registered on 29.05.26 upon receipt of a written FIR from the informant, Shri Mamidi Ravi, brother-in-law of the deceased, alleging that the deceased, Kamlesh Jammi, an employee of the water treatment plant under Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) at Satpukhuri was found dead inside an underground water treatment tank/chamber, within the plant premises on 28.05.26. and that an unknown persons had assaulted and murdered him and thereafter, concealed the body inside the said tank. 4. Prior thereto, the I/O, Latasil P.S, had received telephonic information regarding discovery of the body. 5. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and teams from Forensic Science Laboratory and CID were also called to the scene and after completion of all formalities, the body was recovered from inside the said tank with the help of SDRF wherein, it had been found concealed beneath a circular shaped metallic component fitted with a rotating shaft, the diameter of which is proportionate to that of the tank. 6. The present petitioner is a co-worker of the deceased. Alongwith the present petitioner another co-accused namely, Hemen Sarma was also arrested Page No.# 3/6 on suspicion since they were the only two persons last seen with the deceased who was also an employee of the said water treatment plant. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused and the deceased were employees of the water treatment plant. But the allegation that the petitioner alongwith the co-accused, killed the deceased is without any basis and this is a case of death due to accident. It is the further submitted that the petitioner alongwith the co-accused, were tortured during police custody in order to extract a confession which fact is readily discernible from the order passed by the learned Magistrate while remanding the accused, wherein, upon noticing injuries on the accused persons and after questioning them, the learned Magistrate had issued show cause notice to the I/O. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 25 days and that their further detention is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. Moreover, the petitioner is a government servant and hence, there is no possibility of the petitioner evading the course of justice. 8. The learned Addl. P.P. has produced the Case Diary and has submitted that the postmortem report is not available therein and that FSL report is also not available. Page No.# 4/6 9. I have perused the bail objection submitted by the I/O dated 22.6.2026, wherein, it is stated that the medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination has stated during examination that the injury is homicidal in nature and was caused by a blunt object, establishing that the death of the deceased was not accidental or suicidal but, was a deliberate act of murder. However, no such statement of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination is available in the Case Diary and furthermore, there is no explanation as to why the post-mortem report is not yet collected/submitted despite the fact that the same was carried out way back on 29.05.2026. 10. As per the inquest report, injuries was observed on the head, right hand and both knees and such injuries can be caused by falling on a hard substance as well. Although, the I/O has stated that the nature, location and severity of the head injury are wholly inconsistent with any accidental fall or self-infliction, the source of such precise knowledge as regards the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased is known only to the I/O himself, as the inquest report indicates no such finding and the post-mortem report has been kept withheld as is the alleged statement of the doctor who conducted the post- mortem examination 11. Furthermore, although it is stated in the Case Diary that the body of the Page No.# 5/6 deceased was formally recovered from the underground tank where it was concealed beneath a circular shaped metallic component and it is mechanically and physically impossible for any person to be concealed beneath it without external intervention, thereby, ruling out accidental death, no photographs nor any sketch map of the place from where the body was recovered is available in the Case Diary either. 12. It was also submitted in the bail objection that the informant had stated in his statement that the petitioner frequently quarreled with the deceased on trivial matters but, no such allegation is made in the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the informant wherein, he clearly mentions the perpetrators to be unknown persons. 13. As far as the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused were last seen together with the deceased as per CCTV footage, that is a matter of evidence which would be taken into account, in the event of any trial commencing against the petitioner. But at this stage, other than that, there appears to be no such compelling material placed before the court as would lead it to conclude that the further detention of the petitioner is essential for the purpose of investigation. It is noticed that the learned Magistrate by its order dated 30.05.2026, while refusing police remand and Page No.# 6/6 remanding the accused persons to the judicial custody, had granted liberty to the I/O to seek permission for interrogation of the accused persons during judicial custody in accordance with law. However, there is nothing in the Case Diary or in the bail objection submitted by the I/O to show that any permission for such further interrogation in jail custody was sought. 14. In view of the above, the prayer for bail is allowed. The petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with Latasil P.S. Case No. 36/2026, under Section 103(1)/238(a) of BNS, 2023 shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Elaka Magistrate. This bail is granted upon the further condition that the petitioner after being after being released on bail shall not try to tamper with the evidence or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, particularity those connected with the workplace of the deceased or hamper the fair and effective investigation of the case. 15. Bail petition stand allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant