Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010173512026 2026:GAU-AS:12428 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2372/2026 NASIMA BIBI AND ANR W/O AYAM ALI, R/O VILL DIPTA, PS AND DIST NALBARI, ASSAM 2: AYAM ALI SO LATE DOMOHA ALI RO VILL DIPTA PS AND DIST NALBARI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A TALUKDAR, H ALAM,MR. A K AZAD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioners namely, Nasima Bibi and Ayam Ali, has prayed for bail in connection with Sessions Case No. Page No.# 2/3 41/2026 pending before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari arising out of Nalbari PS Case No. 345/2025 u/s 103(1)/94/3(5) of BNS read with Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 3. It is revealed from the records that the two petitioners here who are husband and wife are facing trial. The gist of the allegations in the FIR is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention killed their newborn infant by burning and concealed the body in the jungle which was subsequently recovered. 4. The learned counsel taking the Court through the relevant orders passed by the learned Trial court submits that while charges have been framed against petitioner No.2, medical report was called for with regard to the mental health condition of the petitioner No.1 and she was also subjected to such medical examination before a Board. As reflected in order dated 08.06.2026, the medical board had opined that she was suffering from major psychosis and undergoing treatment in the District Jail, Nalbari. It is reflected in the order that as per the report, her insight and judgment are impaired and she is unable to understand the allegations and its consequences. The learned trial court opining that at this stage the petitioner No.1 is not fit to face the trial has postponed her trial while proceeding against the petitioner No.2. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the bail of both the petitioners has expressed concern that in case the petitioner No. 1 is released on bail on account of her health condition, there might be influence or intimidation of their teenage children who are important witnesses in the trial. 6. I have given my consideration to the matter and perused the materials Page No.# 3/3 available at this stage. It is necessary for the petitioner No.1 to continue her treatment to address her mental health condition; but subject to the said aspect it might be desirable to release her on bail rather than keeping her in detention. 7. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, the bail petition of petitioner No. 2 stands rejected at this stage. 8. However, at this level petitioner No. 1, namely Nasima Bibi, is hereby allowed to go on bail Rs.20,000/- with two suitable sureties (one of the sureties should be a family member) of like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court subject to the following conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not abscond; (b) shall intimidate any witnesses including her children; (c) shall not hamper or tamper with witnesses; (d) The petitioner shall continue taking her mental health treatment to address her mental condition so that she becomes fit enough for resumption of the trial with regard to her. (e) The second surety, who has to be a close family member, shall give an undertaking before the learned trial court in this regard. 9. In view of the above, this bail application stands partly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant