Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010073082026 2026:GAU-AS:6133 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1045/2026 ROFIKUL ISLAM S/O LT.ABDUL JALIL R/O VILL. KADIADINGA P.O. P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, MS. S D HUSSAIN,D.R. AHMED,MS A HUSSAIN,SABRISH AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 06-05-2026 Heard Mr. S Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 12.11.2025 in connection with Sessions (T1) Case No. 7(N)/2026 in connection with Rupohihat P.S. Case No. 374/2025 u/s 103(1) of BNS, 2023. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR along with the Case Diary is received and perused the same. 4. Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since last 175 days and till date has not examined any witness and in four consecutive dates the PWs did not turn for adducing evidence. He further submitted that as the accused/petitioner is behind the bars, he could not discuss about the matter with his engaged counsel. He further submitted that considering his long custodial detention as well as the pendency of the case, he may be released on bail which otherwise it would violate the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, he is being a local residence and he will appear before the Court as and when the date is fixed by the Court, if he is granted with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the case is of u/s 103 BNS and it is there the allegation of committing murder of his wife who was brutally killed by the present petitioner. He further submitted that charge is framed only on 10.03.2026. Mr. Sharma further submitted that there are eye-witnesses including the child who is also the eye-witness, whose statement has already been recorded by the I/O. Accordingly, he submitted that till recording evidence of eye-witnesses, the prayer for bail may not be considered as there may be chance of hampering or Page No.# 3/3 tampering with the evidences of the witnesses. Mr. Sharma accordingly raised objection and submitted that it may not be a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 6. Hearing the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR along with the Case Diary. It is a fact that till date the prosecution could not examine any witness though summonses were sent within a very short period. Further it is seen that charge has also been framed on 10.03.2026 and thereafter case is fixed for evidence. Next date of evidence is fixed on 14.05.2026. 7. Further from the perusing of the record/Case Diary it is seen that the deceased was brutally assaulted with a sharp object. There are several penetrative injuries including one chop injuries on her face which seems that the victim was very brutally assaulted and killed. It is also seen that there are eye- witnesses, including a child and hence probability of hampering or tampering with the witnesses, especially the eye-witnesses, including the child cannot be out-rightly rejected at this stage. 8. Considering the nature of offence as well as the other aspects of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant