Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010125422025 2025:GAU-AS:9672 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1336/2025 SHRI PRIYANK TRIPATHY S/O- PRABHAT RANJAN TRIPATHI. R/O-MARAL GAON, UTTAR MARAL. P.O.- BISWANATH CHARI ALI. DIST.- BISWANATH, ASSAM. PIN-784176. 2: SMTI. KUMKUM TRIPATHI W/O- PRABHAT TRIPATHI. R/O-MARAL GAON UTTAR MARAL. P.O.- BISWANATH CHARI ALI. DIST.- BISWANATH ASSAM. PIN-784176 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A NATH, N. J. MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 28-07-2025 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. A. Nath, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 116/2025 u/s 80/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Nath that the present FIR has been lodged on suspicion and after the death of the deceased. They have not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR nor there is any such demand of dowry from the petitioners’ side. The petitioner no. 2 was already granted with the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail and accordingly she appeared before the I/O, cooperated in the investigation and her statement is also recorded u/s 183 BNSS. The petitioner no. 1 is also ready and willing to cooperate the I/O, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner no. 1. However, post-mortem report regarding the cause of death is yet to be ascertained and the viscera have already been sent for examination of the FSL. But, considering the statement made by the witnesses and the allegation brought against the petitioner no. 2, he raised objection in granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner no. 1 at this stage. Page No.# 3/3 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Case Diary and considering the entire aspects of the materials available in the Case Diary, I find it is not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner no. 1/husband of the deceased. However, considering the conduct of the accused/petitioner no. 2 and other materials in the Case Diary, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner no. 2 may not be required for further investigation. 7. In view of this, the order of interim bail granted to the petitioner no. 2 namely, Smti Kumkum Tripathi vide order dated 12.06.2025 is hereby made absolute with same terms and conditions. 8. The prayer for pre-arrest bail on behalf of petitioner no. 1/the husband of the deceased is hereby rejected at this stage. 9. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant