Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010010992026 2026:GAU-AS:865 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./193/2026 BASIRUZZAMAN LASKAR ALIAS BIJU S/OLATE SIRAJ UDDIN LASKAR R/O KHULICHARA, P.S. DHOLAI DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788114 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A MANNAF, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 27.01.2026 Heard Mr. A Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed Page No.# 2/5 by the petitioner, namely, Basiruzzaman Laskar @ Biju, seeking regular bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 355/2025 arising out of Dholai Police Station Case No. 111/2025 corresponding to G.R Case No. 1434/2025 registered under Section 61(2)/103(1) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The informant who is the brother of the deceased lodged an FIR on 21.08.2025 alleging inter alia that the wife of the deceased i.e. accused No. 1 was in an illicit relationship with the accused No. 2, which was evident from the Whatsapp chats recovered from the mobile phone of the accused No. 2, and it was revealed from the said Whatsapp conversations that the accused persons had been conspiring to kill the deceased and that it had also come to light that the accused persons misappropriated an amount of approximately Rs. 20,00,000/- kept in the house of the deceased for business purposes. On 10.08.2025, the deceased suddenly died at home. He was taken to Silchar Medical College & Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. 4. The charges have already framed and the trial is underway. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the FSL report, wherein it has been found that no poison was found in the viscera examination of the deceased. It is accordingly submitted that the very basis of the prosecution case is that the petitioner had administered poison to Page No.# 3/5 the deceased resulting in his death, and there is no such indication in the FSL report. The rest of the allegations are matters to be considered at the trial, but there is no justification for further incarceration of the petitioner. It is further submitted that though material is available in the charge-sheet regarding administering of Ativan tablets (lorazepam), it is confined to the statement of the co-accused recorded by the police, which is otherwise inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the bail application. 6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that earlier, the CD was called for in connection with another bail application of the co-accused which revealed sufficient material against the petitioner, as reflected in the Order dated 08.01.2026 passed by this Court in Bail Appln. 3912/2025. 7. Countering the aforesaid submissions, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as is apparent from the charge-sheet itself, the Ativan tablets were prescribed to the accused No. 1 by Dr. Ratandip Bose on 27.05.2025 as the petitioner is a diagnosed epilepsy patient suffering from breakthrough seizures, sleep disturbances, anxiety and neurological symptoms, which had been confirmed by Dr. Ratandip Bose himself during police investigation. This explains the recovery of medicine capsules/tablet strips from Page No.# 4/5 the dustbin of the house of the petitioner, who was consuming the said medicine for her own treatment. Further, there is no medical or forensic material to establish that the deceased died due to overdose of Ativan tablets. In the meantime, all the co-accused have been granted bail including the main accused i.e. co-accused No. 1 by the aforesaid Order dated 08.01.2026. 8. From the FSL report, it cannot be denied that there is no evidence to show that the deceased died as a result of Ativan/Lorazepam overdose or from administration of any other poison. The accusations against the present petitioner are largely based on statements of co-accused before the police, which are inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 23 to 25 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, although it is contended that the conspiracy angle has been discovered from the messages exchanged between the accused persons, no such message has been pointed out or annexed to the charge-sheet, so as to enable the Court to take a view one way or the other. 9. Considering the above state of affairs, as well as the fact that the petitioner has spent a long duration of 171 days in custody, and also the fact that the case is now under trial, further detention of the petitioner is not warranted. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. Page No.# 5/5 11. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. It is further provided that the petitioner shall regularly participate/appear on each date fixed before the Court, unless exempted for sufficient reasons, and shall participate in the trial if and when it commences. 12. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant