The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail in a murder case should involve a judicious exercise of discretionary power, considering the gravity of the offence, supporting evidence, and principles of granting bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for and on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 in Crl. Petition No.60/2019 and Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 in Crl. Petition No.58/2019 as well as Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of respondent No.2 in both the cases.

2. Both the petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal as it relates to common order and subject.

3. On the basis of the FIR filed by respondent No.2 Pradip Kumar Sarma on 10.10.2018, Hajo P.S. Case No.802/2018, u/s.302 IPC read with Section 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act was registered and is under investigation. So far as the allegation in the FIR, it reveals that on 09.10.2018, while the wife of the respondent No.2, namely Junu Sarma who was the Service Manager at State Bank of India, Dadara Branch, was returning from her duty in her own car, she was shot by some unidentified gunmen riding on a bike at Agiathuri near Dadara at about 7 to 7:15 P.M. She was immediately shifted to Narayana Super Specialty Hospital, wherein she succumbed to her injuries. During the investigation, large number of witnesses were examined by the I.O. and the accused Arup Das @ Bikram and Ajanta Kalita (respondents herein) were arrested along with other accused persons on 23.11.2018, having found sufficient evidence against them. The I.O. submitted charge sheet within the stipulated period of 90 days on 08.01.2019, against four accused persons including the present respondents and further investigation u/s.173(8) CrPC is still going on with a view to submit supplementary charge sheet.

4. The bail petition was moved before the Court of Sessions for and on behalf of both the accused persons named above and the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon granted the bail to both of them in terms of the order dated 11.01.2019, in B.A. No.525/2018 and B.A. No.526/2018 respectively, which reads as follows:

“Heard ..

Today is fixed for C/D, but the I/O has submitted a report that the case is ended with C/S vide C.S. No.01/19 dated 08.01.2019 against the accused and as such nothing is left for investigation.

Heard Ld. P.P. for the State. Detention of the accused is no longer necessary for investigation, as C/S has already been submitted by the I/O.

Accordingly, accused is allowed to release on bail of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon”.

5. Now raising the grievances that the learned Sessions Judge has mechanically granted the bail to the accused persons without applying judicial mind in such serious offence of murder, the present two petitions have been filed u/s.482 read with Section 439(2) CrPC, challenging the aforesaid order of granting bail to the accused. It has been contended that the learned Secessions Judge whimsically passed the aforesaid order without considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence and failed to consider relevant materials while granting bail and the aforesaid orders are devoid of justified reasons and failed to appreciate that further investigation is still going on and release of the accused persons may hamper the investigation of the case. Further it is also contended that the I.O. of the case never gave any instruction to the P.P. that nothing have been left for investigation as charge sheet has been filed and the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused is no longer necessary for investigation as charge sheet has already been submitted by the I.O. is totally unfounded and misconceived. As such the bail order is liable to be set aside and cancelled.

6. The learned P.P., Assam has drawn the attention of the Court to submit that the learned Sessions Judge has not gone through the case diary in such a heinous crime of brutal murder of a woman by professional killers against paymen