Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010107022026 2026:GAU-AS:9077 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1467/2026 BHAJAN DAS S/O KARTIK DAS, VILL. HARIDUWA BHERBHERI, P.S. NAGARBERA DIST. KAMRUP. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA, S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 23.06.2026. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Sri Bhajan Das, who has been arrested on Page No.# 2/6 09.04.2024, in connection with Sessions Case No.144/2025 (corresponding to Nagarbera P.S. Case No.46/2025), under Section 302 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon. The scanned copy of the TCR has already been received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Deka, the learned counsel that the present accused petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2024 and till date, he is more than 2 years 2 months 15 days in the custody and that apart, out of 16 cited witnesses, the prosecution has already examined 10 witnesses including the vital/eye witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that on the earlier bail application of the present accused petitioner was rejected with an observation that some of the eye witnesses are yet to be examined and there is chance of absconding of the present accused petitioner. But the petitioner is a permanent resident of his addressed locality and he is ready to produce all this documents like the Aadhar Card, Pan Card and other Bank documents etc. before the learned Trial Court if he is granted with the privilege of bail. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire incident had happened only due to sudden provocation when he had a quarrel with his wife/deceased. The accused petitioner had no intention to kill his wife and daughter but out of sudden provocation, the incident had happened when he lost his control. The petitioner is in custody since long and hence, he needs to consult with his engaged counsel to take his proper defence and hence, he prayed for bail. However, the petitioner is still ready and willing to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on each and every date to be fixed by the Court. Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that in the Page No.# 3/6 scanned copy of the TCR, there is only evidence of 7 numbers of witnesses. However, he submitted that evidence of 10 numbers of cited witnesses have already been recorded by the learned Trial Court, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam further submitted that it is not a case of sudden provocation and from the record as well as from the evidence of the eye witnesses as well as the of the victim, it is seen that the accused petitioner not only committed murder of his wife but he chased his five years old daughter and chopped her who died on the spot. Thus, he committed double murder wherein he brutally murdered his wife as well as his five years old daughter. Apart from that he also chased his another daughter to kill her but somehow she managed to escape and thus releasing the present accused petitioner on bail, life threatening for his surviving daughter. Mr. Baruah further submitted that the case is very serious in nature and probability of absconding of the accused petitioner also cannot be denied at this stage if he is released on bail. Accordingly, Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised vehement objection and submitted that the present bail prayed may not be considered at this stage. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and the case record. It is seen that the earlier bail application of the present accused petitioner was rejected on 25.02.2026, after perusal of the case diary and the statement of the witnesses. At that relevant point of time, 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of 16 cited witnesses and at present, from the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that 10 numbers of witnesses have already been examined including the eye witnesses as well as some vital Page No.# 4/6 witnesses of the prosecution. The present accused petitioner is also behind the bar since for more than 2 years 2 months till date. On the earlier bail rejection order, observation was made by this Court that probability of absconding of the petitioner cannot be out rightly rejected considering the nature and gravity of the offence. From the record, it is seen that there are many eye witnesses who saw the accused person while committing murder of his wife and also saw the accused while he killed his five years old daughter by chasing her and she died on the spot instantly. That apart, it is also seen that the accused petitioner also chased his another minor daughter but somehow she managed to escape and is still surviving. Thus the submission made by Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam regarding life risk of the surviving daughter of the accused petition also cannot be rejected at this stage. Further it is seen that the accused petitioner had brutally killed his wife and one daughter in front of the eye witnesses. It may be a case of sudden provocation to kill his wife on a sudden fight but killing his five years old daughter cannot be held to be sudden provocation. That apart, the life risk of another daughter of the accused petitioner still exists. The period of long incarceration cannot only be the sole ground for consideration of bail in such nature of offence wherein the accused petitioner had killed his wife as well as his five years old minor daughter, with the intention to kill his another daughter. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. reported in 2005 0 Supreme (SC) 104, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed Page No.# 5/6 the view that “if a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be question as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorized by law.” Further, it is seen that the case is proceeding at a good pace and out of 16 cited witnesses, 10 have already been examined by the prosecution and thus, it also cannot be held that there is prolonged delay in the trial to infringe the right of the accused petitioner granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That apart, considering the nature and gravity of the evidence, the probability of hampering with other prosecution witnesses as well as absconding of the accused petitioner also cannot be denied at this stage. In the light of discussion made above and also considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact that there is a prima facie case against the present accused/ petitioner and further considering the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case laws referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the present bail application stands rejected. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon is hereby directed to complete the trial of the case within a reasonable period and preferably within 3/4 months of this order. The bail application stands disposed of in terms above. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant