Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010059642025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./859/2025 SANIYA BEGUM WIFE OF LATE HANIF ALI, VILLAGE 2 NO BARBALA, P.S. MUKALMUA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM,PIN-781126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. W RAHMAN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. B CHOWDHURY (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 14.05.2025 Heard Mr. W. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the informant. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Saniya Begum, who has been detained behind the bars since 16.02.2025 (for last 89 days) in connection with Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 33/2025 registered under Page No.# 2/3 Sections 103 (1)/238 (a) BNS. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 14.02.2025, one Abdullah Ali has lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Mukalmua Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 14.12.2025 at about 12:00 p.m. the dead body of his elder brother was found buried near the river at Napara Pam Char. It is alleged in the FIR that someone has planned and killed the elder brother of the informant. Thereafter, during investigation, the police arrested Kalachan Ali and Romjan Ali and the present petitioner. The main reason for arresting the present petitioner is that she is alleged to be having illicit relationship with the co- accused Kalachan Ali and it is alleged that she had instigated the other two accused persons to kill her husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a lady and she has been arrested mainly on suspicion of having instigated the other co-accused for commission of the alleged offence. He also submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 89 days and considering the period of detention she may be allowed to go on bail. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Makulmua PS Case No. 33/2025 and has approached to grant of bail on the ground that there are no sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. Case diary of having been involving criminal conspiracy to kill her own husband. Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the informant has also approached to grant of bail to the present petitioner. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides and perused the case diary. In the Case Diary, there are materials indicating that the petitioner might Page No.# 3/3 be involved in the conspiracy of killing her own husband. However, at this stage, it is the statement of co-accused only, which implicates her. Moreover, considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars last 89 days and the investigation is pending for receipt of FSL report only. This Court is of considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may not be required if she cooperates in the investigation for a fair completion of the investigation. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and also considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, the above-named petitioner in the aforementioned case is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Nalbari with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the victim girl or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court; and (ii) the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant