Five accused facing trial under Sections 61(2)/189(2)/103(2) BNS for an alleged fatal assault sought bail after an earlier rejection. With both eyewitnesses now examined and the petitioners willing to cooperate in the trial, the court granted bail on bonds with conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010106802026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1441/2026
SRI ANIL PEGU AND 4 ORS. SON OF KADANG PEGU,
3: SRI FALGUNI PEGU
SON OF - GUBINDA PEGU
SON OF - BAPARAM PEGU
5: SRI BIKASH PEGU SON OF - SRI JIBA KANTA PEGU ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - RAKUT KEMERE P. O.- RATANPUR P.S. - JONAI DISTRICT - DHEMAJI ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI, MR. R B GOHAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date - 04.06.2026
1. Heard Mr. B. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Anil Pegu, (2) Sri Hiren Kutum, (3) Sri Falguni Pegu, (4) Sri Utpal Pegu and (5) Sri Bikash Pegu, seeking bail in connection with Sessions Case No. T1-13/2025 pending before the Court of Session Judge, Dhemaji under Sections 61(2)/189(2)/103(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 had surrendered before the Court on 12.11.2025, and thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody, whereas petitioner No. 5 was arrested on 06.08.2025.
4. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.05.2025, one Smt. Ajanta Kutum, had lodged an FIR, before the Officer-In-Charge of Jonai Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR, (including the present petitioners) had assaulted the husband of the informant on 02.05.2025 near Rakut Kemere Primary School, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. Later on, the husband of the first informant succumbed to his injuries.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is for the second time the petitioners have approached this Court seeking bail.
7. He submits that on an earlier occasion, the prayer for bail was rejected by this Court by its order dated 08.04.2026, passed in Bail Application No. 885/2026. He submits that the main reason for rejection of bail on last occasion by this Court was that out of two eyewitnesses, only one was examined at that point of time, and the remaining eyewitness, namely, Boga Kutum, was not examined at that point of time.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this Court also granted liberty to the petitioners, who approached the Trial Court seeking bail after examination of the remaining eyewitness, namely, Boga Kutum. He submits that the said eyewitness, namely, Boga Kutum, was examined by the Trial Court as PW-3 on 04.05.2026, and thereafter, in pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioners approached the Trial Court seeking bail. However, the Trial Court, by its order dated 11.05.2026, passed in Sessions Case No. T1-13/2025, rejected the prayer for bail, mainly on the ground that incriminating materials are there against the present petitioners.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the trial and there are total 9 witnesses out of which 5 have been examined and he also submits that apart from
Page No.# 4/5
10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that this Court, while rejecting the bail on the earlier occasion, had mentioned the reason for said rejection as nonexamination of both the eyewitnesses, however, it appears that both the eyewitnesses have been examined.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record.
12. Since the reason for the earlier rejection of bail application of the petitioners was mainly non-examination of the eyewitnesses at that point of time, so that there may not be any possibility of influencing the eyewitnesses. However, as the said eyewitnesses have been examined, no such possibility remains. Moreover, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the trial, this Court does not find any justification to keep them behind the bars during the remaining period of trial, accordingly, the petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court i.e., learned Session Judge, Dhemaji with the following conditions.
Page No.# 5/5
13. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail after the eyewitnesses earlier cited as a ground for rejection have since been examined.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Anil Pegu and 4 Ors.
The State of Assam
Mridul Kumar Kalita
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
