Gauhati High Court
AB/1035/2026 of KUSHAL SHARMA AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 13 August 2026
GAHC010097682026 2026:GAU-AS:11550 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1035/2026 KUSHAL SHARMA AND ANR SON OF JANAK SHARMA, R/O. MILAN MORE, CHAMPASARI, SISABARI, P.O.- CHAMPASARI, DIST.- DARJEELING, WEST BENGAL-734003 2: MADHAB
GAHC010097682026
2026:GAU-AS:11550
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1035/2026
KUSHAL SHARMA AND ANR
SON OF JANAK SHARMA, R/O. MILAN MORE, CHAMPASARI, SISABARI, P.O.- CHAMPASARI, DIST.- DARJEELING, WEST BENGAL-734003
2: MADHAB PAUDEL
SON OF PABAN KUMAR PAUDEL
R/O. PURBA RANGIA
SHISHABARI
NEW RANGIYA
RANGIA
DIST.- DARJEELING
WEST BENGAL-734013
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P SHARMAH, B BASUMATARY,MR R CHETRY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SAIFUL ISLAM(INFORMANT),MR. R
ISLAM(INFORMANT),MR. M U MAHMUD(INFORMANT)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
14.08.2026 Heard Mr. P. Sharmah, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the informant.
2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Sidli P.S. Case No. 11/2026, under Sections 103(1)/3(5)/61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023, this application, under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, has been preferred by the applicants, namely, Kushal Sharma and Madhab Paudel, for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the above-noted case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Sri Shyam Sundar Jha, on 07.05.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 07.05.2026, is that the son of the informant, namely, Yomkar Jha, aged about 18 years, was missing from his locality, since the morning of 04.05.2026. Upon enquiry, he came to know from 4-5 women, working in Tamul factory in village-Nepalpara, that on 04.05.2026, his son was seen in the company of two persons, namely, Kushal Sharma and Madhab Paudel, at around 5:00 P.M.; who came to the house of his uncle, namely, Sri Khelaraj Upadhaya, at Garubhasa. Thereafter, two Adivasi persons informed him that the said three persons were seen going towards the Laohati river, in the evening of 04.05.2026, and the villagers near Champa river also saw the three persons taking bath in the river and having fun. And suddenly, the villagers saw only two persons emerging from the river in wet undergarments and when questioned about their near-naked state, both of them ran away. Thereafter, on 05.05.2026, at about 6:30 PM, he received information about a dead body found in the Champa river and he suspects that the two persons, namely, Kushal Sharma and Madhab Paudel, are involved in murdering his son.
4. Mr. Sharmah, learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Court, vide order dated 08.06.2026, was pleased to grant the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the applicants and pursuant to the said order, the applicants have appeared before the I.O. and their statements were also recorded, and that they are cooperating with the investigating agency and under such circumstances, he has contended to make the interim order, dated 08.06.2026, absolute, in the same terms and conditions.
5. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned APP for the State respondent, by producing the case diary before this Court, submits that the applicants have appeared before the I.O. and they have been extending cooperation with the I.O. and their statements have also been recorded. He also submits that the I.O. has examined the witnesses and sent the viscera of the deceased person to the FSL for report, and the report is still awaited.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the informant, has vehemently opposed the petition. Referring to page Nos. 26, 27 & 28, coupled with the fact that after commission of the offence, the applicants were absconding; he submits that the same raises serious suspicion about involvement of the applicants with the offence of murder and under such circumstances, he has opposed the petition.
7. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case dairy, with the assistance of Mr. Goswami, learned APP for the State respondent.
8. It appears that vide order, dated 08.06.2026, the applicants were granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail and pursuant to the said order, the applicants have appeared before the I.O. and their statements were also recorded, and that the applicants have also been co-operating with the investigating agency.
9. From the case diary, it also appears that the I.O. has achieved significant progress in the investigation of the case and now the case is pending for collection of the viscera report of the deceased. In that view of the matter, custodial interrogation of the applicants seems to be unwarranted in this case.
10. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of, by making the interim order, dated 08.06.2026, absolute, in the same terms and conditions.
11. Case diary be returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant