GAHC010266982025 2025:GAU-AS:17525

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./3892/2025 MINTURAJ KAMAN AND ANR

SON OF LATE JITEN SAIKIA,

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PATHALIAL,P.S. DHEMAJI,DISTRICT - DHEMAJI,

ASSAM.

2: CHINTU SAIKIA

SON OF LATE JITEN SAIKIA

R/O VILL- PATHALIAL

P.S. DHEMAJI

DIST. DHEMAJI

ASSA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K

DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

ORDER

17-12-2025 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J.

Chutia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Minturaj Kaman and (ii) Chintu Saikia, who have been arrested in connection with Sessions Case (T- 1) No. 09/2025 under Sections 103/61(2)/49 of BNS, 2023 arising out of Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 82/2025 under Sections 61(2)/117(2)/109(1) of BNS, 2023.

3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel that the present petitioners got arrested in connection with this case on 30.05.2025 and since then, they are in custody.

5. The charge sheet in the case has already been filed on 31.07.2025 with prayer for further investigation of the case and from the charge sheet it is seen that the I.O. had undertaken to submit the FSL report of the seized four numbers of mobiles phones and DVR along with final post mortem report before this Court on receipt of the same at subsequent time. Thus, from the charge sheet filed by the I.O. it reveals that the investigation was further proceeded and the subsequent charge sheet along with those reports are yet to be submitted by the I.O. when the charge sheet was filed against the present petitioners along with others.

6. More so, from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji on 16.10.2025 it reveals that till date no final post mortem report was submitted showing the cause of death of the deceased as well as other forensic reports in regard to the mobile phones and DVR was also awaited till 16.10.2025 and accordingly, the I.O. was directed to furnish the same.

7. Further, from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 13.11.2025 it also reveals that though one post mortem report was forwarded by the I.O. but that was not the post mortem report which was directed to be furnished by the court and accordingly, the SSP, Dhemaji was directed for ensuring compliance. Thus, from the charge sheet as well as these two orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, it is seen that the investigation was still going on and the I.O. was directed to furnish all the required report by the learned Sessions Judge as it was not received, neither with the charge sheet and nor it was received till the date of passing the orders.

8. He further submitted that the accused petitioners are in custody since 30.05.2025 and charge sheet was also filed within the statutory limitation of 90 days, but inspite of lapse of 90 days, the I.O. could not file the complete charge sheet and the case was still under investigation, wherein, the I.O. prayed for time to file the post mortem report as well as other forensic report for the mobile handsets and DVR analysis etc. Thus, the charge sheet which was filed without completion of the investigation, cannot extinguish the right to default bail under Section 167 (2) of the CrPC.

9. To substantiate his plea, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. Ritu Chhabaria and Ors., reported in (2024) 12 SCC 116 and basically emphasized on paragraps

28 and 33, 33.1, 33.2 and 33.2, which reads as under:-

“28. Therefore, in light of the abovementioned discussions, it can be seen that the practice of filing preli