Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010045812026 2026:GAU-AS:4143 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./650/2026 RAFIQUL ISLAM S/O- LATE NUR MOHAMMAD. R/O- TUKRABANDHA, LATIA, P.S.- CHAPAR. DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, U U KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 22.05.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is the second application filed U/S 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner namely Rafiqul Islam, who was arrested on 02.04.2025 in connection with PRC Case No. 1529/2025 arising out of Bharalumukh P.S Case No. 188/2024 U/S 61(2)/140(3)/140(4)/142/249(C)/103(1) of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegations contained in the FIR is that on 17.10.2024, complainant namely Asiya Khatun lodged an ejahar to the effect that on 03.10.2024 at about 03.00 PM, one Abdulla called the complainant's daughter Miss Ramena Khatun and her husband Md. Rafiqul Islam to Tokorabandha under Bilashipara, Dhubri and they went to the said place. They have taken an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with her some gold ornaments. Complainant tried to contact with them but found their mobile phones are switched off. Complainant suspect that Abdulla Ali along with Md. Rafiqul Islam kidnapped his daughter and they sold his daughter somewhere. Hence the case. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this second bail application has been filed on new grounds namely that other co-accused persons have been released on bail by this Court as well as the learned SDJM, Bilashipara by different orders. Moreover, the petitioner was not arrested during the period of Page No.# 3/4 investigation and after completion of investigation, his further detention is not required. It is also pointed out that the case, though has been charge sheeted long back, has not yet been committed due to the same being pending for appearance of other accused persons. 5. Learned Counsel also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Musheer Alam Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in SLP (Crl.) No. 18081/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed the view that once the investigation is over and the charge sheet is filed, then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the Court. 6. Obviously, the aforesaid decision has been rendered in a fact situation where the accused was yet to be arrested. In the present case, the accused has already been behind bars. 7. A perusal of the orders by which other co-accused have been granted bail would show that in some cases, the said co-accused stood on a different footing as far as their role in the commission of the offence is concerned, whereas others were granted bail on technical grounds, which are not attracted in the case of the present petition. Page No.# 4/4 8. Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly objects to the ground of bail to the present accused, who is the prime accused of the case, accused of killing his wife and there are sufficient incriminating materials available in the CD against the present petitioner, as already reflected in the order dated 19.11.2025, in Bail Application No. 2536 of 2025 by which the prayer for bail of the present petition was rejected by this Court. 9. Having regard to the above, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant