Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010005562026 2026:GAU-AS:2616 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./126/2026 JAMAL ALI S/O LATE AHED ALI, R/O VILL SONIADI SAKALAPARA, PS HAJO, DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 20.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. K. Das, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/4 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for granting regular bail to the Accused/petitioner who was arrested on 06.12.2025 in connection with the Hajo P.S Case No. 504/2025 under Section 103 (1)/238/3(5) BNSS, 2023. 3. The allegation, as stated in the FIR dated 04.12.2025, is that one Jamal Ali, accused No. 3 in the FIR, had taken an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the father of the informant about one year ago with a promise to sell a plot of land, but the same was not done. The informant’s family of five members, including the father and mother, had been staying for the last one year in a house built on the land of the accused persons. 4. It was further alleged that accused No. 1, namely Ahmad Ali, had a love relationship with the complainant’s minor sister, Sahida Khatun, who was about 17 years and 6 months old. It was alleged that on 02.12.2025, at about 11:00 P.M., accused No. 1 allegedly entered their house and, taking advantage of the father’s ill health, made him unconscious by giving him a cigarette mixed with some substance. Thereafter, he allegedly killed the victim girl and attempted to portray the incident as a suicide by hanging the dead body. 5. It was also alleged that accused No. 1 intended to marry another woman, and that was the reason for which the victim girl was killed by the accused persons. Page No.# 3/4 6. Mr. K. Das, learned counsel for the accused applicant, submits that the entire case has been falsely instituted by the informant and her family due to an ongoing dispute regarding a monetary transaction. He further submits that there is no eyewitness in the instant case and that the story narrated in the FIR is unbelievable. He submits that the accused applicant has already been in jail for the last 76 days and is in no way involved in the death of the victim girl. Therefore, at this stage, taking into account the facts of the case as apparent from the FIR, the Court should grant bail to the accused applicant. 7. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, on the basis of the case diary, submits that there are many incriminating materials against the accused applicant indicating his involvement in the instant case and, therefore, at this stage, the accused applicant should not be granted bail. 8. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also gone through the Case Diary. Taking into account the length of detention as well as the contents of the FIR, this Court is of the prima facie view that, at this stage, the accused applicant should be granted bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of Page No.# 4/4 like amount to the satisfaction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hajo, subject to the following conditions: i. That the accused applicant shall cooperate with the investigation. ii. That the accused applicant shall not try to get in touch with the family of the victim girl by any manner. iii. That the accused applicant shall not try to influence any witness that may be involved in the instant case. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the instant bail application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant