Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21801 (GAU)

SHWIRAJUL ISLAM @ SIRAJUL ISLAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/3334/2024 · 2025-02-04

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010267502024 2025:GAU-AS:1179 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3334/2024 SHWIRAJUL ISLAM @ SIRAJUL ISLAM S/O SAIDUR RAHMAN R/O P.O. SINGIMARI, VILL- PACHIM SINGIMARI, P.S. RUPAHIHAT, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 05.02.2025 Heard Ms G Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shwirajul Islam @ Sirajul Islam, who has filed this subsequent application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Rupahihat PS Case No. 155/2024, registered under Sections 191(2)/191(3)/190/329(4)/ 115(2)/103(1) of the BNS. 2. Heard Mr B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/2 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on subsequent change of circumstances, this application has been filed with prayer for bail as the petitioner is suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes. The petitioner has annexed the prescriptions as Annexure-3 of the petition, in support of his submission that he is consuming 6 to 7 tablets daily. 4. I have scrutinized the medical documents. 5. It is not clear from the documents as to what type of ailment, the petitioner is suffering from. Moreover, I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. 6. Heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, who has raised serious objection, stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary, against the petitioner. 7. The Case Diary reveals that there are indeed incriminating materials in the Case Diary, against the petitioner. The enormity of the offence does not entitle the petitioner to pre-arrest bail, at this stage. 8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused, committed murder of Abdul Barek, i.e., the father of the informant. 9. Petition with prayer for bail stands rejected, at this stage. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant