Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6392 (GAU)

JITU KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./1245/2026 · 2026-05-18

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010093422026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1245/2026 JITU KUMAR S/OLATE GOPAL KUMAR R/O HOUSE NO. 8, RUKMINIGAON, CHINAKI PATH, NEAR KANAN NIVAS, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MR. S RAHMAN,MR S M ABDULLAH P Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 19.05.2026 Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner, namely, Sri Jitu Kumar, who is in custody in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 44/2026, has prayed for release on bail. Page No.# 2/2 In the year, 2016, petitioner married for the third time and the third wife has lodged an FIR against him stating that after marriage of the petitioner, he had subjected her to physical harassment. She was kept locked inside the house and not allowed to talk with her neighbors also. In a span of two years, she was forced to have abortion of her pregnancy on six occasions. The petitioner even applied for registration of their marriage with the third wife by stating falsely that he was a single/unmarried person. He even threatened his third wife by showing her pistol. The informant did not know that the petitioner had two sons, one from each of his two earlier wives. The informant further stated that she did not know that the petitioner married twice before marrying her. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. It is a dispute between the husband and wife. This Court is of the opinion that since they are husband and wife, the petitioner no longer deserves to be detained in custody. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner Sri Jitu Kumar, who is in custody in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 44/2026, is allowed to go on bail of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant