Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4949 (GAU)

HEMEN TALUKDAR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./303/2026 · 2026-02-24

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010017272026 2026:GAU-AS:2851 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./303/2026 HEMEN TALUKDAR S/O- NARAYAN TALUKDAR VILL- RAIT KUCHI, P.O- KUMAARKUCHI, P/S- AND DIST-NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R PATAR, MS DIPALI DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 25.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Dipali Dutta , learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. TCR as called for has been received. Page No.# 2/2 3. This is a second Bail Application filed on behalf of the petitioner, i.e., Heman Talukdar, as the earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide Order dated 20.11.2025 in Bail Application No. 3420 of 2025, and as reflected in the said order, it was found that there was sufficient incriminating material against the present petitioner including eye witness accounts fully implicating the present petitioner. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has already spent 251 days behind bars and has a small 6 years old child who is suffering from heart ailments and there is no one to look after her other than the mother. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that charges have already been framed including under Section 103 of the BNS and all the witnesses have implicated the petitioner in their statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which I have already perused. 6. It appears that the recording of evidence in the case is yet to commence and having regard to the grave nature of the allegations and the incriminating material available, it would not be prudent to release the petitioner on bail before commencement of the evidence as there is every possibility of the petitioner attempting to influence the witnesses. 7. Having regard to the above, the present application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant