Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010112392025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1800/2025 BOGADHAR DIHINGIA AND 3 ORS. S/O LATE GULUK DIHINGIA R/O KONWAR DIHINGIA GAON, P.S. DEMOW, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM 2: NIRMAL DIHINGIA ALIAS MOON S/O SRI BOGADHAR DIHINGIA R/O KONWAR DIHINGIA GAON P.S. DEMOW DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM 3: SMT JYOTI DIHINGIA W/O SRI BOGADHAR DIHINGIA R/O KONWAR DIHINGIA GAON P.S. DEMOW DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM 4: SMT MONIKA DIHINGIA W/O SRI NIRMAL DIHINGIA R/O KONWAR DIHINGIA GAON P.S. DEMOW DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MS. A LALA,MRS R BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 09.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Smt. Monika Dihingia, (2) Smt. Jyoti Dihingia, (3) Sri Bogadhar Dihingia and (4) Sri Nirmal Dihingia, who have been detained behind the bars since 18.03.2025 (for the last 80 days) in connection with Demow P. S. Case No. 23/2025 under Sections 103(1)/238/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 17.03.2025 one Rajesh Konwar had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Demow Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on 14.03.2025 the sister of the first informant has been murdered by the present petitioners. 4. It is stated in the FIR that villagers have found one blood-stained Jute sack with one T-shirt, which was seized by the police. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law of the deceased, whereas the petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioner no. 2 is the brother-in-law of the Page No.# 3/4 deceased and the petitioner no. 3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR, no accusation has been made against petitioner No. 1 as well as petitioner No. 2. 7. He also submits that the main acquisition has been made against the son of the Petitioner No. 1, namely Shri Basanta Dhingia, who is also the husband of the victim woman. 8. He further submits that the present petitioners are arrested only on the basis of suspicion and they are not involved in the offence alleged in this case. 9. He also submits that considering the long period of incarceration undergone by the present petitioners, they may be allowed to go on bail. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Demow P. S. Case No. 23/2025 and has submitted that the police has not yet been able to recover the corpus of the victim woman and she continues to remain untraced even after lapse of more than 80 days from the date of the alleged incident. 11. He, however, fairly submits that presently incriminating materials are there in the case diary mainly against the son of the petitioner No. 1, namely, Shri Basanta Dihingia, who is also the husband of the victim woman and they are not involved in the offence alleged in this case. However, presently the police has not been able to collect much evidence against the present petitioners. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available in the case diary. 13. It is pertinent to mention herein that in a connected case, the bail application moved by the son of the petitioner No. 1, namely Shri Basanta Dihingia, was dismissed on the grounds that sufficient materials are there on Page No.# 4/4 record against him. 14. However, on perusal of the case diary, it appears that against the present petitioners at this stage, apart from strong suspicion, no concrete evidence is there regarding their complicity in the alleged offence. 15. Hence, considering the fact that the petitioners are detained for a long period and also considering the fact that at this stage, there is lack of concrete incriminating materials against the present petitioners in the case diary, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioners otherwise cooperate in the investigation, their custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 16. In view of the above, the above-mentioned petitioners are hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. That the petitioners 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. 17. This bail application is, accordingly disposed of. 18. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant