Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010085452025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1305/2025 PRADIP BARMAN S/O- LATE KAMINI BARMAN, R/O- PACHIM BORAGAON, UNDER L.P. SCHOOL, P.S- GORCHUK, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. PERMANENT ADD- PART-II, CHAKIARPARA, P.O- AMBARI, P.S- DINHATA, DISTRICT- COOCHBEHAR, WEST BENGAL VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y S MANNAN, MS R BEGAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 26.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/4 Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Pradip Barman, who has been detained behind the bars since 05.04.2025 (for the last 52 days) in connection with Garchuk P. S. Case No. 108/2025 under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.04.2025, one Puja Barman lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Garchuk Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that for the last few days, prior to lodging of the FIR, there was a continuous quarrel going on between her mother, Joshna Barman, and father, Pradeep Barman, (present petitioner). 4. It is alleged that on 03.04.2025, at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner assaulted his wife, and on 04.04.2025, his wife was found dead, and her dead body was recovered from the tea stall of restaurant belonging to the deceased. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusation made against the petitioner in the FIR are not true. He submits that though, the FIR is shown to have been filed by one Puja Barman, who is the daughter of the petitioner. However, the said informant has filed an affidavit in this case, wherein she has stated on oath that she has not lodged any FIR against her father and police took her signatures on a blank paper, which was later on used as an FIR without her knowledge. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has also stated in her affidavit that her mother was a habitual drinker and used to consume alcohol almost every night and was found in senseless condition in her bed in the morning, when she was found dead. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is otherwise detained behind the bars for the last 52 days and the post-mortem examination report would have revealed the truth. However, the Page No.# 3/4 prosecution side has unable to produce the same. 8. He also submitted that considering the long detention of the petitioner as well as considering the fact that the first informant herself has, by filing an affidavit, disowned the fact of lodging the FIR against her father, he may be allowed to go on bail. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the though the case diary Garchuk P. S. Case No. 108/2025 is available, however, the post mortem examination report is not there. 10. He also submits that there are incriminating materials in the case diary, which suggests that on the day prior to the date of the alleged incident, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and his wife and the neighboring people had heard the shouts from their house. 11. He also submits that that prior to the incident in this case on earlier occasion also, the petitioner used to assault his wife after quarrelling with her. 12. He, therefore, prays for calling of the post-mortem report and opposes the grant of bail at this stage. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 14. It appears that on last two occasion, the prosecution side has filed to produce the post mortem examination report today also the same has not been produced. 15. It appears that though, there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary to the extent that there was some shouts and quarreling was there with his wife on previous in night of the alleged incident. 16. However, no injury was found on the body of the deceased, however, there was a suspension as regards some marks on the neck of the deceased as Page No.# 4/4 to whether the same is skin fold due to some ligature. 17. Be that as it may, as of now apart from the statement of the witnesses and there was a quarrel, no other material directly implicating the person is there in the case diary. 18. Further, the informant has also filed an affidavit, diswoing the FIR which is stated to be filed by her. 19. Also considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 52 days, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, if he cooperate in the investigation, for fair completion of the investigation. 20. In view of the above discussion, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rangia subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer. 21. This bail application is, accordingly disposed of. 22. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant