Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010129342025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1352/2025 SHRI SHYAM BAHADUR AND 5 ORS. S/O-LT. DHANRAJ KEWAT, R/O H/N-25,SWAHID DILIP CHAKRABORTY PATH,TARUN NAGAR,GUWAHATI-5, P.S-BHANGAGARH, DIST- KAMRUP (M) 2: SMT NILIMA DEVI W/O-SRI SHYAM BAHADUR R/O H/N-25 SWAHID DILIP CHAKRABORTY PATH TARUN NAGAR GUWAHATI-5 P.S-BHANGAGARH DIST-KAMRUP (M) 3: SRI RAJESH KUMAR KEWAT S/O-SRI SHYAM BAHADUR R/O H/N-25 SWAHID DILIP CHAKRABORTY PATH TARUN NAGAR GUWAHATI-5 P.S-BHANGAGARH DIST-KAMRUP (M) 4: MRS POOJA KUMARI W/O-SRI RAJU KUMAR KEWAT R/O H/N-25 SWAHID DILIP CHAKRABORTY PATH TARUN NAGAR GUWAHATI-5 P.S-BHANGAGARH DIST-KAMRUP (M) Page No.# 2/4 5: MS ANJALI KUMARI KEWAT D/O-SRI VIJAY KUMAR R/O H/N-25 SWAHID DILIP CHAKRABORTY PATH TARUN NAGAR GUWAHATI-5 P.S-BHANGAGARH DIST-KAMRUP (M) 6: MS NEELAM NISHAD W/O-SRI RAVI SHANKAR KEWAT R/O H/N-25 SWAHID DILIP CHAKRABORTY PATH TARUN NAGAR GUWAHATI-5 P.S-BHANGAGARH DIST-KAMRUP (M) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M NATH, MR. D P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A DEKA (INFORMANT),MS P MISHRA(INFORMANT),MR. V N UPADHYAY(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 13.08.2025 Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant. Page No.# 3/4 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, (i) Sri Shyam Bahadur (ii) Smt. Nilima Devi (iii) Sri Rajesh Kumar Kewat (iv) Mrs. Pooja Kumari (v) Ms. Anjali Kumari Kewat (vi) Ms. Neelam Nishad, have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 96/2025, registered under Section 80(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The six accused petitioners were granted interim protection by the co- ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2025 and the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant thereof, they have appeared before the investigating officer and some of their statements have been recorded. It is also submitted that since the petitioners have co-operated with the investigation and appeared before the investigating officer, their anticipatory bail should be continued and make it absolute. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and submits that two witnesses have been examined and investigation stated to be progressed and not yet complete. 5. I have also heard Ms. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, who is the brother of the deceased supporting the allegation in the ejahar. The learned counsel for the informant submits that the victim was continuously subjected to demands for dowry of RS. 20,00,000/- after her marriage and the family members, out of compulsion, were come to Guwahati to settle the issue and in the meantime, the informant’s sister is stated to have committed suicide, supporting the allegation in the ejahar. She further contends that the family members of the victim are suspicious that actually it may a case of murder also. Page No.# 4/4 6. I have gone through the relevant portions of the case diary. I find the statements of the two witnesses apart from the informant, the informant has supported the allegation and mentioned about the demand of dowry of Rs. 20,00,000/-; it is to be reflected in the statement of other two witness stated about the said demand of dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the informant has also submitted about two witnesses supporting the allegation of dowry demand in their statements. The deceased is alleged to have unnatural death as because, only after a few months of her marriage. The allegations are considerably serious pertaining to illegal dowry demand and alleged suspicious death only after a few months of her marriage. 7. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be prudent not to impose any fetter or restriction on the remaining investigation which should proceed as per law and taken to the legal conclusion, to find truth of the matter. In the facts and circumstances and materials available so far, I am of the considered opinion that this is not an appropriate case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, bail application stands rejected at this stage. The interim protection granted to the petitioners vide order dated 13.06.2025 is hereby stands vacated. 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant