Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010154582026 2026:GAU-AS:13158 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2112/2026 SAIDUR RAHMAN S/O LATE SAJJAD ALI, R/O DAKHIN NOWABIL, P.S. MURAJHAR, DIST.- HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS, MR. B HUSSAIN,MR S A BARBHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 09.09.2026 Heard Mr S A Barbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Murajhar PS Case No. 122/2026, registered under Sections 61(2)/80(2)/238 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The First Information Report in connection with which the petitioner was arrested Page No.# 2/3 and is put behind the bars for the last 76 days, was lodged by the sister of the victim alleging, inter alia, that the deceased was married to the petitioner and that they have a 7 months old girl child. She stated that her sister was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioner and that money was demanded from her as dowry by the petitioner and his family every now and then. The informant further stated that on 25.06.2026, the informant went to the hospital as she was ill and while she was returning home, her husband, i.e., the petitioner asked her to bring some money from her parents’ house and that on the next day, i.e., on 26.06.2026, the petitioner called up the informant saying that the victim had committed suicide by hanging at home. The informant further stated that they suspect that the victim had not committed suicide, but was killed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was inside jail for the last 76 days and that the petitioner was not involved in the offence as alleged in the FIR. He also submits that neither the petitioner had asked for any money from the victim’s family. 4. Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on perusal of the Case Diary, however, submits that the Post-Mortem of the victim showed that she died by hanging herself. He also submits that there are independent witnesses, who had stated that they have heard quarrel amongst the petitioner and his wife and that they have also heard that the petitioner had demanded money from the family of the victim. He also submits that apart from the same, there are other materials on record to show that it was the petitioner who was responsible for the death of the victim, and as such, he objects to Page No.# 3/3 the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels for all the parties, and, more so, in view of the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner as well as the fact that the independent witnesses had heard about the demand of dowry, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Sankardevnagar, Hojai, under the following conditions:- i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer/concerned Court, as and when called for. ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witnesses; and iii) the petitioner shall not leave his residence without prior permission of the Investigating Officer. 7. Bail Application stands disposed of. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant