Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010235162025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3503/2025 JAHIRUL HOQUE @ JOHURUL HOSSAIN AND ANR SON OF LATE BABOR ALI SK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JHASKAL PART III, PS AGOMANI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: ROMIZA BIBI WIFE OF JAHIRUL HOQUE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHASKAL PART III PS AGOMANI DIST DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM, MR G U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 09.12.2025 Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the accused persons and Mr. B. Rajib Kumar Roy Digitally signed by Rajib Kumar Roy Date: 2025.12.11 11:52:18 +05'30' Page No.# 2/6 Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by accused namely, Romiza Bibi and Jahirul Hoque @ Johurul Hussain, who have been languishing in jail hazot since 12.11.2024, in connection with the Sessions Case No. 366/2024, under Sections 120(B)/302/34 of the IPC, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri (trial court hereinafter), arising out of Agomoni PS Case No. 98/2023, for granting bail. 3. Notably, the Agomoni PS Case No. 98/2023, has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Osman Gani, on 03.06.2023. 3.1. The allegation against the present accused persons in the FIR, dated 03.06.2023, is that on 02.06.2023, at about 12:30 pm, accused Rubul Hossain; Romiza Bibi (petitioner); Rejina Khatun; Anamul Hoque; Feroza Bibi; and Jahirul Hossain @ Johurul Hussain (petitioner) picked up a quarrel with the daughter of the informant and assaulted her by fastening her hand and leg and thereafter, poured kerosene oil on her person and set her ablaze, as a result, she sustained serious injuries on her person. Thereafter, she was taken to Dhubri Medical College and Hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries. 4. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the accused persons submits that this is the second bail application preferred by the accused persons and the first bail application was dismissed by this Court on 04.08.2025. He also submits that the present accused persons were arrested on 12.11.2024, and since then they have been languishing in jail hazot for last 1 year 13 days. Mr. Islam further submits that the prime accused in this case is one Rubul Hossain and Feroza Bibi, and they have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and the present accused are their parents. Mr. Rahman further submits that after Page No.# 3/6 completion of investigation, charge sheet has already been filed against the present accused persons showing them as absconder and when they had appeared before the learned trial Court on receipt of summons, they were taken into custody after rejection of their bail petition. Mr. Rahman also submits that in the charge sheet as many as 21 witnesses have been cited out of which, only 6 witnesses have been examined so far and there is no certainty as to when examination of rest of the witnesses will be completed given the present pace of trial, and that one of the witness, who was present at the time of recording dying declaration, has not supported the prosecution case. It is also his submission that the accused are aged persons and they will appear before the learned trial court regularly. Therefore, Mr. Rahman has contended to allow the petition. In support of his submission, Mr. Islam has referred a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnivash vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 89, wherein bail granted by Rajasthan High Court to the accused, who was a lady, in the case Mahendri vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2023 0 Supreme (Raj) 1804, has been upheld. 5. Per-contra, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition on the ground that the offences are very serious in which the present accused are implicated and the deceased suffered demise having sustained 90% burn injury on her body. Mr. Sharma also submits that there is dying declaration of the deceased and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan, Criminal Appeals No. 3528-3534 of 2025 submits that filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail and appreciation of evidence at the stage of bail is also not permissible. Therefore, Mr. Sharma has contended to dismiss the petition. Page No.# 4/6 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial Court. Also I have gone through the decision in Sri Darshan(supra). 7. The accused persons, named above, were charge sheeted under Sections 120B/302/34 of the IPC. They have also been charged along with other co- accused under the said sections of law. Indisputably, as many as 21 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet and so far, 6 witnesses have been examined. 8. Notably, in the case of Sri Darshan(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage. The Court further observed as under:- “It is a settled principle that at the bail stage, courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial.” 9. The Court also remarked that the reading of the High Court’s Order gives an unmistakable impression that it has pre-judged the outcome of the trial, thereby setting the stage for discharge or acquittal, which is contrary to law. It has been observed as under:- “… the findings of the High Court, while deciding bail, are to be treated as expressions of opinion only for that purpose and should not, in any manner, prejudice Page No.# 5/6 the trial or other proceedings. In the present case, however, the High Court has relied upon irrelevant and premature assessments, and entered into questions best left for the trial, thereby committing a grave jurisdictional error”, it clarified. 10. It has also been held that filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail. It has been reiterated that mere filing of a charge- sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail and likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. Relevant observation is reproduced herein below:- “The mere filing of the charge-sheet, the existence of a long list of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by themselves, constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the offence or to disregard the case put forth by the prosecution”, it added. 10.1.In view of aforesaid proposition, the submission of Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the accused that one of the witness, who was present during the recording of dying declaration has not supported the prosecution case, cannot be accepted. Nor his submission that 21 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet and only six witnesses have been examined so far, left this Court unimpressed. 10.2.This Court has considered the decision in Ramnivash (supra), referred by Mr. Islam. And it appears that no proposition of law has been laid down in the said case, unlike the case of Sri Darshshan (supra) which has the effect Page No.# 6/6 of a binding precedent. 10.3.It also appears from the record that the trial is in progress. Further, from the materials placed on record and also from the scanned copy of the record a prima-facie case, against both the accused appears to be made out. Moreover, the charges against both accused are serious. And thus considering the interest of the accused and balancing the same with that of the societal interest and that of the victims, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the present accused and accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 11. But, the learned trial Court is directed to make an endeavor to dispose of the case as early as practicable, without being influenced by any of the observation made herein above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant