Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010082802026 2026:GAU-AS:6582 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1116/2026 NEZAM UDDIN SON OF LATE KUTUB ALI RESIDENT OF VILL- KALAGANG, P.O. KALAMAUGRA, P.S. RATABARI, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 13/05/2026 Heard Mr. H R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nezam Uddin, seeking bail in Sessions Case No. 34/2026 arising out of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 183/2025 under Sections 103(1) BNS added Section 61(2)/238 of BNS, 2023. The petitioner is behind the bars since 31.10.2025. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused petitioner is innocent and he is arrested in connection with this case only on suspicion. He lodged the FIR, when his wife was attacked by one of the co-accused by taking advantage of opening the door by his daughter and he is the person, who took his wife immediately to the police outpost and then she was referred to the Cheragi Hospital, where she was declared death. He further submitted that except the suspicion, there is no evidence at all against the present accused petitioner. He further submitted that only on the basis of recovery of a dao, he was suspected by police and accordingly, he was subsequently arrested and case has also been charge-sheeted against him. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused petitioner is an illiterate person and from the arrest memo as well as from the notice issued under Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, also it reveals that he put his thumb impression on those notices, as he is an illiterate person, but, it is seen that the notice both under Section 47 and 48 of BNSS as well as the arrest memo under Section 36 BNSS are written in English to which language, the present petitioner is not at all acquainted with. 6. In that context, Mr. 6. In that context, Mr. Choudhury, relied on a judgment passed in Criminal Page No.# 3/5 Appeal No. 2195/2025 (Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.) and basically emphasized on para 44, 45, 46 and 56 of the said judgment. He has given special emphasized on para 56 (ii), wherein, it is the observation of the Apex Court that ‘the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands’, but in the instant case, it is seen that there is no proper compliance of Section 47 and 48 of BNSS and the communication has been made in English language to which the accused petitioner is not at all acquainted with. Thus, he submitted that only on the grounds of merits, bail may not be granted to the petitioner, but there are some technical grounds also, wherein, the accused petitioner is entitled to go on bail. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused petitioner being the permanent resident of the locality, there is no chance of absconding, rather, he will appear and contest the case regularly before the learned Trial Court below. 8. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted in this regard that it is a fact that initially the FIR was lodged by the present accused petitioner, but subsequently, during investigation, many incriminating materials have been found against the present accused petitioner, on the basis of which, the present accused person has also got arrested and they laid the police for recovery of the murder weapon. That apart, it reveals from the records as well as the charge-sheet that the accused petitioner had made confession at the time of investigation as to how he along with the co-accused persons made a conspiracy and committed murder of his wife. 9. Mr. Sarma, further submitted that the case has already been charge- sheeted and the charge has already been framed, but the next date is fixed for Page No.# 4/5 a case management hearing and the probability of fixing the case for evidence will be there after the next date of listing. He further submitted that there are 12 nos. of cited witnesses and till recording of the evidence of the independent witnesses, the bail prayer of the present petitioner may not be considered, wherein, he alleged to have committed a heinous offence by killing his own wife. 10. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and the other annexures filed along with the petition. 11. It is seen that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused petitioner, on the basis of which, he got arrested and subsequently, charge-sheeted in the said case. The murder weapon was also discovered as laid by the present accused petitioner along with the co-accused. Thus, there are materials against the present accused petitioner. However, without going into the merits of the case, it is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioner also raised some law points of the technical issues stating that there was no proper service of notices under Sections 47 and 48 as well as 36 of the BNSS. 12. On perusal of the notices, it is seen that the accused petitioner put his thumb impression in all the notices issued to him being an illiterate person. 13. In that context, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein, it has been held that the communication should be made in the language he understands. 14. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, it Page No.# 5/5 reveals that while issuing notice to the present accused petitioner under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, there is a note of the Investigating Officer that he communicated the grounds of arrest to the accused petitioner in Bengali language, which he understands and in a form of certificate, one note is also submitted by the Investigating officer along with the notice issued under Section 47 BNSS. More so, the petitioner is not acquainted or he cannot write or read neither Assamese, English or Bengali language being an illiterate person. Thus, even if the notice is written in English, but there is a specific note of the Investigating Officer that it was communicated him in Bengali language, which he understands or acquainted with. 15. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is sufficient compliance of Sections 47 and 48 as well as 36 of the BNSS and the accused petitioner cannot be allowed to go on bail at this stage only on those technical issues. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that till the recording of evidences of some of the independent witnesses, it is not safe to consider this bail application, as probability of tampering with the evidence also cannot be denied at this state. 17. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant