Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010201612026 2026:GAU-AS:14605 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2830/2026 INJAMUL HOQUE AND ANR SO INTAJUR RAHMAN, RO VILL BADANI AKHIYA, PS MUKALMUA, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM 2: RIJUL HOQUE ALIAS RIYZUL S/O BASIRUDDIN ALI R/O LAWTALA PS MUKALMUA DIST NALBARI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM, GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : S KAUR, MS. L BASUMATARY,N NEOG,L BANIK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 30-09-2026 Heard Ms. L Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 56/2026 arising out of Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 23/2026 registered under Sections 123/103(1) of the BNS, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, Assam. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners were arrested on 24.02.2026 was lodged by the mother of the victim stating inter alia that on 19.02.2026 her son went to the house of the petitioner No. 2 and had tea there and that after consuming the tea her son fell unwell and was admitted in the Mukalmua Hospital. She further stated that for better treatment, her son was taken to GMCH and while undergoing treatment, her son died on 20.02.2026 at around 1:00 pm. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the said FIR, the Police investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against three accused persons, including the present petitioners. She submits that even if the allegations made in the FIR is considered that the victim went to the house of the petitioner No. 2 and had tea there, but seeing the time, he met his death, which was long after he had tea at the house of the petitioner No. 2, the petitioners cannot be held responsible. She states that the victim had gone from the house of the petitioner No. 2 to Guwahati thereafter he came back and again went back to Guwahati, wherein he felt ill. She as such submits that the death of the son of the informant could be by no stretch on the fact of having tea in the house of the petitioner No. 2. 5. Mr. B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand on perusal of the Trial Court Records submits that the victim vomited within 24 hours of having tea in the house of the petitioner No. 2 and by placing reliance Page No.# 3/3 on the post-mortem report, he submits that the victim had a liver failure due to sudden toxic load from insecticide and it is stated in the said post-mortem report that the victim died of consuming insecticide. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, more so, in view of the fact that the petitioners were implicated in the case only on the basis of suspicion and also due to the fact that since trial will start soon, the petitioners will have to defend their case, this Court enlarges the petitioners on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one local surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, Assam under the following conditions:- i) The petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. ii) The petitioners will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) The petitioners will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the concerned Court. 7. Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant