Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5985 (GAU)

JITEN BORO v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./989/2026 · 2026-05-14

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010070222026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./989/2026 JITEN BORO S/O LATE LANGING FISLANG BORO, R/O VILL GERAPARA, PS MUSHALPUR, DIST BAKSA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN,MR. A TARAFDAR,A MISHRA,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 15.05.2026 Heard Mr. S Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused- petitioner, namely, Jiten Boro, praying for grant of bail in connection with Nalbari P.S. Case No. 112/2024 under Section 302 IPC which after completion of investigation resulted in a Page No.# 2/2 charge-sheet under the same penal provision and subsequently registered as Sessions Case No.26/2026 and stated to be presently pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari at the stage of trial. The informant is a landlord of a house where the deceased and her partner i.e. the present accused person lived together. On 01.04.2024, the landlord discovered the dead body of the deceased inside the house and her partner i.e. the present petitioner was missing. The informant suspected that the deceased was murdered and therefore, he filed an FIR. When the dead body subjected post mortem examination doctor reported that death was the natural death. This is the reason why this Court, by order dated 07.04.2026, granted interim bail to the petitioner. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the both sides. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be detained in custody at this stage for the allegation brought against him. Therefore, the bail prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2026 is made absolute. The bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant