Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010033092026 2026:GAU-AS:4533 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./577/2026 JAHIRUL HOQUE ALIAS JOHURUL HOSSAIN AND ANR. S/O LATE BABOR ALI SK, R/O VILL JHASKAL PART III, PS AGOMANI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: ROMIZA BIBI W/O JAHIRUL HOQUE R/O VILL JHASKAL PART III PS AGOMANI DIST DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM, MR G U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 30.03.2026 Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State Page No.# 2/4 respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the two accused, namely, Jahirul Hoque @ Johurul Hossain and Romiza Bibi, who have been languishing in jail hazot since 12.11.2024 in connection with Sessions Case No.366/2024, arising out of Agomoni P.S. Case No.98/2023, under Sections 120(B)/302/34 of the IPC, for grant of bail. 3. Notably, Agomoni P.S. Case No.98/2023, has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Osman Gani, on 03.06.2023. The allegation against the present accused persons in the FIR, dated 03.06.2023, is that on 02.06.2023, at about 12:30 p.m., accused Rubul Hossain, Romiza Bibil (accused No.2), Rejina Khatun, Anamul Hoque, Feroza Bibi and Jahirul Hoque @ Johurul Hossain (accused No.1) picked up a quarrel with the daughter of the informant and assaulted her by fastening her hand and leg and thereafter, poured kerosene oil on her person and set her ablaze. As a result, she sustained serious injuries on her person. Thereafter, she was taken to Dhubri Medical College and Hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries. 4. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the accused submits that this is the 3rd bail application preferred by the accused and the 2nd application was rejected vide order dated 09.12.2025, in Bail Appln. No.3503/2025. Mr. Islam further submits that though 21 witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet, till date only 9 witnesses have been examined and that there is no immediate chance of completion of trial and under such circumstances, Mr. Islam prays for allowing this application. 5. Mr. Islam also submits that another ground for filing this application is that all the important witnesses have been examined and the accused are also behind the bar for 503 days and referring to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11714/2022], specially to paragraph No.8, Mr. Islam submits that if the crucial witnesses have been examined, there is no likelihood of tampering with the Page No.# 3/4 evidence and there is no likelihood of winning over the witnesses, then bail may be granted even in serious cases also. He also pointed out that one of the witnesses, who is a staff Nurse of the Hospital, where the deceased was admitted, and who was the witness of recording the dying declaration by the Doctor, has not supported the prosecution case and on this count also, he has contended to allow the application. 6. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional P.P. has opposed the petition. He submits that though one of the witnesses, who is a Nurse, has not supporting the dying declaration of the deceased, yet, the Doctor who has recorded the dying declaration of the victim was examined and he supported the case of the prosecution. Mr. Borthakur further submits that the offence is heinous in nature and the involvement of the accused persons in the offence is apparent from the materials on record and while considering the bail application, the Court is not supposed to consider the merit of the case and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra). 8. It is to be noted here that in paragraph No.8 of the said decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that suffice to say that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 14 months, the crucial witnesses have since been examined and there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence. Even otherwise also, the witnesses are close family members of both sides, hence there is no likelihood of winning over the witnesses and since conclusion of trial will take considerable time, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. 9. In the instant case, altogether 21 witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet and out of the said witnesses only 9 witnesses have been examined so far. On the Page No.# 4/4 other hand, the accused persons are languishing in jail hazot for 503 days. It is, however, a fact that one of the witnesses who is a staff nurse, has not supported the prosecution case, but it is well settled that while dealing with a bail application, this Court is not entitled to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution side. The offences are serious in nature and it also appears that some of the crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. And under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused persons. However the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case with right earnest and if possible on day to day basis and to conclude the same as soon as practicable. 10. In terms of above, the bail application stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE