Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010087712025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1327/2025 TAFIKUL ALI @ TAFIKUL ISLAM S/O NIJIMUDDIN ALI VILL-TULSIBARI P.O. TULSIBARI P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM PIN-781376 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD T AHMED, MR. A MOBARAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 21.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Mobaraque, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Tafikul Ali @ Tafikul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 18.05.2024 in connection with Sessions Case No. 28/2024 under Sections 120B/364/302/201 of Indian Penal Code corresponding to Rangia Police Station Case No.150/2024. 3. The petitioner is facing trial in respect of charges under Sections 120B/364/302/201 of Indian Penal Code before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rangia, Kamrup. 4. In the said trial, the charge sheet was laid on the basis of an FIR, which was filed by one Hakim Ali on 18.05.2024, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had kidnapped his daughter on 17.05.2024. 5. It was further alleged in the FIR that on 18.05.2024, the dead body of the daughter of the first informant was found from a pond and it was suspected that the petitioner had committed murder of the daughter of the informant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had himself surrendered before the police on 18.05.2024 and since then he has been detained behind the bars. 7. He also submits that out of 20 witnesses, the prosecution side has already examined six witnesses, including the informant and some of the relatives of the informant as well as one independent witness. He submits that the independent witness has not implicated the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to face trial. 8. However, due to his detention, he is facing difficulty in pursuing his defence. He also submits that considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than one year and is ready to face the trial, he may be released on bail by imposing any condition, which the Court may Page No.# 3/4 need to attach on granting his bail. 9. On the other hand, Mr. M. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the grounds that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner. 10. He submits that the post-mortem report reveals that the dead body bore six injury marks on neck and the cause of death is manual strangulation, which is homicidal in nature. 11. He also submits that seven more independent witnesses are yet to be examined and if the accused is released, and now there is every likelihood that he may influence the witnesses. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that it was the petitioner who led the police to recovery of the dead body in this case. 13. I have considered the submission made by the both sides, and have gone through the materials available on the Court. The offence involved in this case is of serious nature, and there are materials against the petitioner on the Court. 14. On the other hand, the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than one year. It appears from the record that six more independent witnesses are yet to be examined. Considering the nature of the offence involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this time. 15. As of now, he may approach the Court again after examination of the remaining six independent witnesses. Page No.# 4/4 16. The prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant