Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010125562026 2026:GAU-AS:10579 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1652/2026 SAHIDUR KHAN, SON OF- LATE HASIM ALI KHAN, RESIDENT OF - HOUSE NO. 16, P.D. CHALIHA ROAD, P.S.- CHANDMARI,GUWAHATI- 781003,DISTRICT -KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N MAHAJAN, MR. S HAQUE,MR. D BORA,MR. P K DAS,MR. A CHAUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A SONOWAL(INFORMANT),LEVIS HAOLAI(INFORMANT),MR S E M AHMADIA(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 31-07-20 26 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. S. E. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for informant/respondent No.2. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for granting bail to the petitioner, namely, Sahidur Khan in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 72/2026 registered under Sections 103/85/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. On 12.06.2026 the informant lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Chandmari Police Station alleging inter-alia that on the night of 30.05.2026 his sister namely, Kausar Khan had a serious argument with her husband Sahidur Khan at their residence. During the incident, she called the informant on his phone and he recorded the conversation. During the call he heard that Sahidur Khan physically assaulted and hit her. The informant also heard that his daughter telling him that her stepmother would die if she was not immediately provided medical treatment. Instead of arranging treatment, Sahidur Khan also assaulted his daughter. On the very next day at about 5.30 AM, Sahidur Khan informed him over the phone that his sister Kausar had died. Considering the assault that took place during the night, the warning given by the daughter regarding the his sister's critical condition, the failure to provide medical treatment and sudden death of his sister within a few hours of the assault, the informant strongly believed that his sister was murdered by her husband Sahidur Khan or the death was caused by the injuries inflicted upon her and hence the case. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts of the present case, it may turn out to be case of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder punishable under Section 105 BNS instead of Section 103 BNS i.e., murder under which the present case has been registered. 5. In this regard learned counsel has referred to Section 4 of Section 103 of BNS and has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dattatraya Vs. State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 167 wherein it has been Page No.# 3/4 recorded as follows: “20. From every available evidence, which was placed by the prosecution, it is a case where a sudden fight took place between the husband and wife. The deceased at that time was carrying a pregnancy of nine months and it was the act of pouring kerosene on the deceased that resulted in the fire and the subsequent burn injuries and the ultimate death of the deceased. In our considered opinion, this act at the hands of the appellant will be covered under the fourth exception given under Section 300 of the IPC, i.e., “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner”. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is aged about 66 years and before his arrest he had cooperated with the investigation and the petitioner will cooperate with the trial as well as the trial, that may commenced against him, as he is a local resident. 7. Per contra, learned Addl. PP has submitted with reference to the case diary that there is sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner and as is discernible from the statement of the informant, who is the brother of the deceased. 8. Further, the post mortem report has also confirmed that the death was caused due to head injury resulting from blunt force impact. Furthermore, there is recording of conversation available which also implicates the petitioner and the own daughter of the petitioner was also heard saying that unless her step mother, i.e., the deceased is taken to hospital, she is going to die. 9. I have perused the case diary, wherefrom, there is sufficient materials to lend force to the submission of learned Addl. PP as well as learned counsel for the informant who had also submitted that the deceased was the first wife of the petitioner was being continuously tortured because she failed to give birth Page No.# 4/4 to a child, because of which the petitioner had also married for the second time. 10. Furthermore, the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner was passed in an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein, all the evidence recorded during the trial was available for assessment. Presently, the case is at a nascent stage, where the entire evidence is yet to come in. 11. The petitioner has been in detention only for a period of 48 days and considering the heinous nature of the offence and its impact on the collective consciousness of the people of the locality, wherein, this occurrence took place, I do not deem it proper to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant