Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010168812026 2026:GAU-AS:13525 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2281/2026 DIMBESWAR GOGOI SON OF DULALGOGOI, RESIDENT OF RAJA BARI NEPALI BASTI, P.S - BOKAKHAT, DISTRICTBOKAKHAT, ASSAM - 785612. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ATREYA, MR. J KONWAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 14.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. A. Atreya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sessions (Type-I) Case No. 41 of 2026 arising out of Kampur P.S. Case No. 93 of Page No.# 2/3 2025 registered under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 which is pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Nagaon. 3. The FIR in connection with the instant case was lodged on 17.07.2025 by the father of the victim stating inter alia that the petitioner, who is his son-in-law and the deceased along with their child had been staying at his residence for many years. It was further stated that about one week prior to the occurrence, the petitioner had shifted to his own house. The informant alleged that on 15.07.2025 the petitioner had killed his daughter while she was sleeping and thereafter took away their five-year-old child to his parents' house. 4. The informant further alleged that the petitioner often remained intoxicated and that the petitioner himself had called his eldest son-in-law and informed him that he had killed his wife. Upon receipt of the information, the police conducted investigation and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. After completion of the necessary procedures, the trial commenced and out of a total of 11 witnesses 7 witnesses have already been examined. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and that the evidence collected till date is limited to the statement of the eldest son-in-law that the petitioner had informed him that he had killed his wife. It is submitted that there is no concrete evidence against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner may be released on bail. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time when the alleged occurrence took place. 6. Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP on the other hand has placed before the Court the statement of the minor son of the petitioner and the victim, who stated before the learned Magistrate that upon waking up from sleep, he saw his father Page No.# 3/3 assaulting his mother. However, it is noticed that the minor son of the petitioner and the victim was not cited as a witness by the police and has not been arrayed as a witness in the charge-sheet. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, more so in view of the fact that the petitioner is required to be afforded an adequate opportunity to prepare his defence and also considering that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 424 days, this Court deems it fit and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Nagaon subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer 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. 8. Accordingly, this Bail Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant