Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5131 (GAU)

ANUJ KUMAR SARKAR AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/566/2026 · 2026-04-26

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010051142026 2026:GAU-AS:5730 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/566/2026 ANUJ KUMAR SARKAR AND ANR S/O- SUDIP SARKAR. R/O- VILL.- DOWAMAKHA. P.O- LATIBARI, P.S.- TAMULPUR, PIN- 781368. DIST.- TAMULPUR, ASSAM. 2: REENA SARKAR W/O- SUDIP SARKAR. R/O- VILL.- DOWAMAKHA. P.O- LATIBARI P.S.- TAMULPUR PIN- 781368. DIST.- TAMULPUR ASSAM. 3: SRI SUDIP SARKAR S/O- GUNEN @ GUNAI SARKAR. R/O- VILL.- DOWAMAKHA. P.O- LATIBARI P.S.- TAMULPUR PIN- 781368. DIST.- TAMULPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A HUSSAIN, MS. ADITEE HALOI,B. TALUKDAR,G BORO,MR D J HALOI,MR S DAS Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 27.04.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr.D.J.Haloi for the petitioners 1.Anuj Kumar Sarkar, 2. Reena Sarkar and Sudip Sarkar who have filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Tamulpur PS Case No. 112/2025 under Section 103/3(5) of the BNS. 2. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.B. Sharma is present for the State respondent and has raised serious objection stating that the petitioners are not entitled to bail. There are incriminating materials against the petitioners. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have approached this Court on new ground. The messages through the victim’s whatsapp number clearly reveal that the victim had a love affair with petitioner No.1 and she tried to compel the petitioner No.1 to marry her. This is a case of suicide and not a case of murder. There was no abetment from the petitioners to the victim to commit suicide. 4. I have considered the scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials against the petitioners. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to bail considering the FIR and gravity of the offence as reflected in the FIR. 5. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition stands rejected at this stage. Page No.# 3/3 6. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant