Bail Appln./612/2026 of GOLAB ROY AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 8 March 2026

ORDER

Date : 09-03-2026

Heard Mr. S.C Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicants and Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting of bail to the accused/applicants, namely, Golab Roy and Dhiren Deuri, in connection with Missamari P.S. Case No. 15/2018 registered under Sections 302 IPC which was charge-sheeted on 28.02.2018 vide Charge-sheet No. 07/2018 and thereafter registered as Sessions Case No. 264/2025.

3. The charge-sheet in the matter was submitted on 12.09.2018 which culminated in the Sessions Case No. 264/2025. The petitioners herein were earlier on bail, however on their failure to appear before the learned Committal Court on 16.02.2020, non-bailable warrant of arrested were issued against them. Thereafter, the matter remained pending due to the Covid pandemic and also since the learned Magistrate was on training on at least 17 occasions. In the meantime, one of the accused expired on 16.03.2022.

4. On 02.06.2025, the prayer for condonation of delay for a revision against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonitpur was rejected. The petitioners herein were taken into custody on 03.10.2025 on which date they were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tezpur. The learned Magistrate on that day had taken notice that the case was a Sessions triable case charge-sheeted under section 302 and therefore, the petitioners were sent in judicial custody taking note the nature of gravity of the offences by rejecting the bail petition on the same day itself.

5. On 08.10.2025, the petitioners were again produced and on 09.10.2025, the copies have been supplied. On 17.12.2025, the petitioners were produced before the learned Trial Court, the bail petition had been rejected and the three PWs were present, examined, cross-examined and discharged and examinations of one of the PW had been dispensed with.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners had co-operated with the investigation period, it was only because of the absence of receipt of the summons that they have failed to appear before the learned Committal Court. They have now spent more than 158 days in custody and therefore, this Court may consider the prayer for bail during the trial.

7. The learned Addl. P.P has objected by saying that the petitioners on the earlier occasion had remained absent and therefore, the prayer for bail may not be considered at this stage.

8. I have gone through the documents available and I have gone through the copies of the order annexed to the bail petition. In my considered opinion, the petitioners were absent during the Covid pandemic period and thereafter due to the lack of receipt of summon they could not appear, they did not misused the privilege of bail granted earlier to them.

9. In such circumstances, I find that the petitioners entitled to the privilege of bail. It is directed that the petitioners on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one local surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in connection with Sessions Case No. 264/2025 shall be released on bail with such other conditions as the learned Trial Court may deem fit to impose upon them to ensure their participation for further trial.

10. Bail application stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant