Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010075292026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1057/2026 BORO BABA ALIAS ASRAF HUSSAIN SON OF LATE MOKSED ALI RESIDENT OF MADHUSOULMARI PT.II, (KHASKHAMAR ),P.S. GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARMAH, B. D. KAKATI,S. J. SAHARIAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A TARAFDAR,A MISHRA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 21.05.2026 Heard Mr. D. Sarmah, learned counsel, appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent as well as Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel, representing the respondent no. 2. 2. The instant bail application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, has been Page No.# 2/4 filed by the accused-applicant for releasing him on bail, who was arrested on 26.07.2025, in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 234/2025, under Sections 61(2)/103(1) of the BNS, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 799/2025. 3. The gist of the case as has been narrated in the FIR is that one Lufta Bibi, wife of deceased Moniruz Zaman SK, lodged an FIR before the Gauripur P.S., alleging that on 21.05.2025, at around 8:00 PM, the accused persons named in the FIR have killed her husband in her house using various weapons such as sword, dagger etc. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered the case on 22.05.2025, as Gauripur P.S. Case No. 234/2025, under Sections 61(2)/103(1) of BNS, 2023. 5. During the investigation, the investigating authority arrested the accused- applicant on 26.07.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. 6. After completion of the investigation, the investigating authority has filed a charge-sheet bearing Charge-sheet No. 413/2025 on 23.10.2025 before the CJM, Dhubri. It is seen that before filing of the charge-sheet, the accused-applicant had filed a bail application, namely, BA No. 3079/2025, which was rejected by this Court after consideration of the Case Diary. The instant application has been filed post filing of the Charge-sheet and the matter is pending at present before the JMFC-II, Dhubri. 7. Mr. D. Sarmah, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that though the offence committed by the accused-applicant is under Section 61(2), the matter is yet to be committed to the Sessions’ Court for trial. The learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant is already inside the jail for the last 301 days and the other accused persons named in the FIR are yet to be arrested. He submits that since the trial in the instant case will take a considerable time, keeping the Page No.# 3/4 accused-applicant behind the bars will not serve any purpose, as his judicial detention is not required at this stage post filing of the Charge-sheet. He further submits that the accused-applicant was not named in the FIR and he has been arrested on the basis of suspicion and of certain statements by the witnesses. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the accused-applicant should be released on bail at this stage. 8. On the other hand, Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused-applicant of his involvement in the instant case. He submits that the accused-applicant is accused of murder in another pending case and he is a habitual offender. He also submits that several eye witnesses have clearly implicated the accused-applicant in the gruesome murder of the victim in the instant case. Therefore, he opposes the prayer of bail of the accused-applicant at this stage. 9. The TCR in the instant case has been received and the same is perused by this Court. 10. It is seen from the materials produced before this Court that the accused- applicant has criminal antecedents and is also an accused in a case of alleged murder. It is also seen from the TCR that there are sufficient prima facie materials pointing finger to the accused-applicant’s commission of the alleged offence in the instant case. 11. This Court had taken into consideration the length of detention of 301 days of the accused-applicant and has also considered that the trial is yet to be started. However, taking into account the materials available in the TCR as well as the criminal antecedents, this Court is not convinced to grant the accused-applicant any bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the accused-applicant is rejected. Page No.# 4/4 12. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant