Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010207072025 2025:GAU-AS:13631 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3023/2025 JOYNAL ABEDIN SON OF LT. SAMSUL HOQUE VILL- TAMUKBARI PT.II P.S. BAGRIBARI, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D GOSWAMI, A SARMA,MR S AFRIDI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 13.10.2025 Heard Mr. S Afridi, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr. R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the accused applicant, namely, Joynal Abedin, in connection with Sapatgram Police Station Case No. 41/2025 under Sections 103(1)/238/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The facts of the case as have been narrated in the FIR are that on 14.09.2025 an FIR was lodged by one Anisa Bibi, wife of the victim, alleging that on 12.07.2025 at about 6 PM the victim who was the husband of the complainant went to Nayahat Bazar. It was alleged that while going to Nayahat Bazar, the victim received a phone call from one Raju who requested him to bring some medicine. It was also alleged in the FIR that during the phone call, it was disclosed to Raju that the victim was on route to Sapatgram. When the victim did not return home for dinner, the informant tried to call him on his mobile phone, however, could not get connected with the victim, as the mobile phone was found to be switched off. As the victim did not return home till 2-3 AM, the family of the victim initiated a search, but could not find the victim. On the following day, i.e., 13.07.2025 at about 1:30 PM they received information that a male dead body has been recovered from Noksa River at Rangapani Pt-II under the jurisdiction of Sapatgram Police Station. After the recovery of the dead body, the informant filed the instant FIR, expressing strong suspicion that her husband, the victim must have been killed by one Nazrul Islam along with some other Page No.# 3/4 individuals as the aforesaid Nazrul Islam accompanied by three other persons visited the house of the informant some time back regarding a disputed land and the boundary wall thereon. 4. After the filing of the FIR, police registered the case and started their investigation. However, till date no Charge-Sheet has been filed. 5. The accused applicant was arrested on 27.07.2025 and since then, he is inside the jail. 6. The accused applicant had preferred a bail petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilasipara. However, the said bail petition was rejected by the learned JMFC, Bilasipara on 31.07.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant is the brother of the main accused who has been named in the FIR and that the accused applicant is no way connected in the instant matter. He submits that on the date of the occurrence, i.e., on 12.07.2025, he was, in fact, in Hatigaon in Guwahati and was not present in the place of occurrence. Therefore, he submits that this is a fit case, wherein his prayer for bail should be granted by this Court. He further submits that there is an apparent alibi present in the instant case and this Court should consider that aspect of the matter. 8. On the other hand, learned APP, Assam appearing for the State submits that the accused applicant is involved in the crime as that can be seen from the case diary received. He submits that from the investigation, it is found that the accused applicant along with his brother visited the house of the victim some days back and threatened the victim with dire consequences if the disputed land is not mutated in his and his brother’s name. 9. Learned APP, Assam further submits that the victim as well as the accused persons, in fact, went to the house of one Hasan Ali and thereafter, the victim was Page No.# 4/4 taken to the back side the garden of the house of said Hasasn Ali and later the victim was killed by the accused persons. 10. This Court has perused the case diary in the instant matter as well as heard the submissions made by the learned counsels representing the parties. 11. After perusal of the case diary, this Court has seen that there are serious incriminating materials available against the accused applicant. It is seen that the accused applicant was previously involved in threatening the victim as well as, prima facie, his presence during the commission of the offence cannot be ruled out. 12. Having found the aforesaid incriminating materials, this Court is of the opinion that the instant bail application does not merit any interference by this Court. 13. Therefore, the instant bail application is rejected. 14. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. 15. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant