Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010033262025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./424/2025 SAYED RAJUL ALI @ RAJUL ALI @ RAJU AND ANR S/O JAMAL ALI R/O VILL- BHOGPUR NO. 2, P.S. GORESWAR DIST. TAMULPUR, ASSAM 2: SAYERA BEGUM @ SAYARA BEGUM W/O JAMAL ALI R/O VILL- BHOGPUR NO. 2 P.S. GORESWAR DIST. TAMULPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M HOQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 24.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Sayed Rajul Ali @ Rajul Ali @ Raju and (2) Sayera Begum @ Sayara Begum, who are detained behind the bars since 10.11.2024 and 26.12.2024, respectively in connection with PRC Case No. 17/2025 under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to Goreswar P.S Case no.30/2024. (Session Case No. 33/2025 pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Baksa) 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.05.2024 one Tafijul Ali has lodged an FIR against the above named petitioners before the Officer-in- charge of Goreswar police station, inter alia, alleging that Rajul Ali married Tarikan Bibi about 5 years ago. After that she was subjected to cruelty by the above named petitioners and it is also alleged that the petitioners assaulted her and set her on fire by using petrol and the victim woman was struggling for life when the FIR was lodged. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on an earlier occasion the prayer for the anticipatory bail of the present petitioners was rejected by this Court on 09.08.2024 in AB Case No.1483/2024 and thereafter, the petitioners were arrested. 5. He submits that in the meanwhile, the charge sheet has already been Page No.# 3/4 laid and charges are also filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the other two co-accused namely, Papu Ali and Sahijul Ali are already released on bail. 7. He submits that the petitioners are also ready to face and cooperate in the trial and, therefore, they may be allowed to go on bail. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are sufficient incriminating material against both the accused persons and there is a probability of getting an order of conviction against both of them. He, therefore, opposes the grant of bail. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 10. In this case, the charge-sheet has already been laid and the earlier rejection order was at the stage when the case was pending for investigation only. 11. It is also pertinent to note that two of the co-accused are already released on bail and they are appearing before the Trial Court. 12. If both the petitioners cooperate in the trial, their custodial detention may not be necessary for a fair completion of the trial. 13. In view of above, both the above named petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions: i. That the petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall appear before the Trial Court, as and when required by the Trial Court. Page No.# 4/4 ii. That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Trial Court. 14. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant