Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010033972025 2025:GAU-AS:4773 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./497/2025 NUR ALOM S/O- ALIM UDDIN, R/O- JAMLAI RUPAHARA, P.S. NAGARBERA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, P. KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 21-04-2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Paramanik for the petitioner Nur Alom, who has filed this application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 13.02.2025 in connection with Nagarbera Police Station Case No. 17/2025 under Section Page No.# 2/3 80/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhiga, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in the offence of dowry death of his wife. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. It is submitted that the FIR clearly reflects that the petitioner subjected the victim to cruelty which led to her death. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress in his argument that the victim has consumed poison and this is not a case of dowry death. There is no instance of dowry demand from the petitioner’s side. The petitioner is entitled to bail as the ground of arrest has not been mentioned to him. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was not aware of the grounds of arrest which were not communicated to him either in writing or in words. 6. I have scrutinized the Case Diary. It is true that the grounds of arrest were not clearly communicated to the petitioner either in writing or in words. It is true that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. However, I have considered the progress of investigation and the length of detention. I have also considered the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of arrest. 7. It appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is Page No.# 3/3 enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Boko. 8. In terms of the above observation, this Bail Application stands disposed of. 9. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant