Dismissed¶13

Babu Ali v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 Dec 2025Bail Appln./3783/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application dismissed; S.483 BNSS 2023; Babu Ali v. State of Assam; Bail Appln./3783/2025; Gauhati High Court; decided 09.12.2025 by Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita; Jorhat P.S. Case No. 202/2025; BNS sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1); alleged fatal sharp-object assault of 20.04.2025; FIR by Bhuban Ch. Baruah; 231 days custody; charge sheet laid, no witness examined; identification by independent witness in Test Identification Parade; bail rejected pending examination of identifying witness; reapplication permitted before trial court thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The case involves accusation of assault of the victim boy by the petitioner which led to his death, and there are sufficient materials against the petitioner on record; he was identified by one of the independent witnesses in test identification.

Babu Ali Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Babu Ali, should be released on bail at this stage under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, despite 231 days of incarceration and a laid charge sheet with no witness examined, given that an independent witness who identified him in the Test Identification Parade remains unexamined.

¶4

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Unless the independent witness who identified the petitioner during the Test Identification Parade is examined, it would not be proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage given the grave accusations against him.

¶10

Key takeaways

The prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.ratio¶11
The petitioner may, however, move an application for bail before the trial court after examination of the witness who identified him during the test identification parade.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita), order dated 09.12.2025 dismissing Bail Appln. No. 3783/2025 under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 filed by Babu Ali, detained 231 days since 23.04.2025 in Jorhat P.S. Case No. 202/2025 under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/109(1)/3(5) of BNS with added Sections 191(2)/191(3)/190/103(1) of BNS, 2023, for allegedly assaulting the informant's son with sharp objects on the night of 20.04.2025, leading to death. Charge sheet laid but no witness examined; petitioner identified by an independent witness in the Test Identification Parade. Holding: with sufficient materials on record and grave accusation, it is not proper to release the petitioner on bail until that identifying witness is examined; bail prayer rejected at this stage, with liberty to seek bail before the trial court after examination of the identifying witness.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010259832025

2025:GAU-AS:17063

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./3783/2025

¶6

BABU ALI

¶7

S/O LATE CHORAB ALI R/O VILL. MILON NAGAR, MADHYA NAKACHARI, NEAR DIGAMBARCHUK, P.S. DIST.- JORHAT

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A MONDAL, MR. A ISLAM

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

09.12.2025

¶15

1. Heard Mr. M.A. Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

¶16

2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Babu Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 23.04.2025(for the last 231 days), in connection with Jorhat P.S. Case No. 202/2025, under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/109(1)/3(5) of BNS with added Sections 191(2)/191(3)/190/103(1) of BNS, 2023.

¶19

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 21.04.2025, one Bhuban Ch. Baruah had lodged an FIR before the Officerin-Charge of Rajabari Police Out-Post under Jorhat Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on the night of 20th April, 2025, the son of the informant was assaulted with sharp objects by one Riju and some other associates causing grievous injury on the person of the son of the informant. Later on, the injured persons succumbed to his injuries.

¶20

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for the last 231 days and though the charge sheet has been laid, however, not even a single witness has been examined till date by the prosecution side. He submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the trial, however, considering the long incarceration, he may be allowed to go on bail.

¶21

5. On the other hand, Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail of the petitioner at this stage as the case in hand is of a serious nature, where the victim was brutally assaulted to death

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

allegedly by the accused persons.

¶24

6. He further submits that the present petitioner has also been identified as one of the perpetrator of the offence by one of the prime (independent witness) during Test Identification Parade. Hence, he submits that unless the said witness is examined, it may not be proper to release the petitioner at this stage. As in such an eventuality, there may be likelihood of the present petitioner influencing the said witness.

¶25

7. Hence, he prays for rejecting the application for bail.

¶26

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records of this case.

¶27

9. The case in hand involves accusation regarding assault of victim boy by the petitioner which led to his death and there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner on record. He was also identified by one of the independent witness in test identification period.

¶28

10. Hence, unless the said witness is examined, it may not be proper to release the present petitioner on bail at this stage when such grave accusation has been made against him.

¶29

11. The prayer for bail is therefore, rejected at this stage.

¶30

12. He may however move an application for bail before the trial court after examination of the witness, who had identified

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

him during test identification parade.

¶33

13. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

JUDGE