Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010141962026 2026:GAU-AS:10382 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1923/2026 MD SAHABUDDIN MANDAL ALIAS KALU S/O - LATE SAH ALOM MANDAL, R/O- VILLAGE- PAKRITAL, P.S.- FAKIRAGRAM, DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR (BTAD), ASSAM PIN-783345 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM , REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B M DEKA, MS LR KHANAM,MR R.AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Md. Sahabuddin Mandal @ Kalu, praying for grant of bail in connection with Sessions Case No.219/2025 arising out of Chandmari PS Case No.178/2025 registered under Section 329(3)/103(1) of BNS Act. 3. In the FIR lodged in the instant case by the husband of the victim on 07-07- Page No.# 2/3 2025 reveals that on the previous day i.e. on 06-07-2025 at around 9.30pm an unknown miscreant entered his residential premises and assaulted his wife by stabbing her on the neck from the backside, as a result of which his wife expired. It is further stated that his minor daughter on seeing the incident raised hue and cry and hearing the cries of his daughter he and other neighbors reached the spot and found his wife lying on the floor in an injured condition. It was also stated that on the basis of the description provided by the minor daughter the accused person was identified. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the said FIR, investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was submitted and after completion of the necessary formalities the trial commenced. The learned counsel for this petitioner submits that the charge sheet was submitted before the Court on 13-09-2025 and the trial had started but till date only one witness was examined. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that summons were issued to the witnesses more particularly to the complainant as well as his minor daughter but they had not appeared before the trial court for their examination till date. He submits that the petitioner has been inside the jail for more than a year and the trial had not reached to any extent. He as such submits that the petitioner be released on bail during the pendency of the trial which is taking long. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Goswami, learner Additional Public Prosecutor for the state submits that there is no delay in the trial as can be seen from the order sheets wherein it is stated that summons were issued every time for appearance of the Prosecution witnesses but somehow it could not be proceeded with for the absence of the said witnesses. He submits that the matter at hand involves killing of the wife of the complainant and as such he prays that no bail should be granted to the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel has also submitted and placed the statement recorded Page No.# 3/3 of one of the prosecution witnesses who was the eyewitness to the incident and who had stated that she had seen the petitioner assaulting the victim. 8. I have heard the counsel and gone through the records. It is noticed that the FIR was submitted on 07-07-2025 and the charge sheet was filed on 13-09-2025 and the trial started with framing of charge on 26-11-2025. It is also seen in the order sheet that on a number of occasions summons were issued to the Prosecution witnesses but the said witnesses had not appeared and in the charge sheet it is shown that there are 15 witnesses to establish the case against the petitioner. It is also seen that till date only one witness was examined and the petitioner is languishing in jail since the day of his arrest. It is also noticed that there are some discrepancies in the statement of PW 1 with the contents of the information given by the complainant. 9. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one local security of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) under the following conditions that the petitioner: (i) will appear before the trial court as and when called for. (ii) will not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses connected in the case. (iii) He will not leave his place of residence without the permission of the trial court. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant