JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. 2. By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioners, namely, 1. Md. Rekibuddin Ahmed @ Raja, 2. Md. Rubul Ali, 3. Md. Rafikul Ali @ Kauri, 4. Md. Rahul Ali, 5. Md. Najrul Ali @ Sarumoni, have prayed for grant of bail in connection with Hajo Case No. 1993/2021 u/s 120B/364/302/201 of the IPC. 3. The case diary, as called for, is placed before this Court. 4. The FIR reveals the allegation that on 28.11.2021 at about 3 p.m., while the informant's son was at a repairing workshop near Khopnikuchi Petrol Pump for repairing his vehicle, the FIR named accused persons suddenly came in a Bolero vehicle and forcefully kidnapped him from there. On 29.11.2021, the informant came to know from the Officer-in-Charge, Hajo P.S. that his son had been kidnapped and killed and the dead body was left in an unknown place under Udalguri P.S. It is further alleged that the FIR named accused persons had enmity with the informant's family and on the day of occurrence, one Babul Ali and Faraz Ali called his son to the garage in a deceitful manner. 5. Ms. S. K. Nargis, learned counsel for the accused petitioners, submits that the petitioners, who are young youths, are absolutely innocent and that they are in judicial custody for a prolonged period. 6. Opposing the bail application, Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court, submits that there is sufficient incriminating materials against the accused petitioners. However, Mr. Das submits that considering the length of detention only, the bail application may be considered favourably. 7. The post mortem report shows that the cause of death of Sofiqul Islam was due to massive haemorrhagic shock following cut throat injury which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 8. It is noticed that the accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are in judicial custody for 67 days; accused petitioner No. 3 for 55 days; accused petitioner No. 4 for 54 days and accused petitioner No. 5 for 53 days. 9. 8. It is noticed that the accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are in judicial custody for 67 days; accused petitioner No. 3 for 55 days; accused petitioner No. 4 for 54 days and accused petitioner No. 5 for 53 days. 9. It is noticed that the accused petitioner No. 2 while leading the police to recover one pistol at a jungle area, he all on a sudden picked up the pistol and shot at police, which hit in the door of the police vehicle. The police in turn fired in order to overpower him, which injured his leg and then the police seized the pistol of the accused petitioner. 10. The case diary reveals abundance of incriminating evidence of serious nature against the accused petitioners. The investigation is yet to be completed. 11. Therefore, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if the liberty of bail is granted to the accused persons, the ongoing investigation is likely to be adversely affected. 12. Therefore, the bail application of the accused petitioners stands rejected. 13. Return the case diary. 14. This disposes of the bail application.