Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2552/2026 of SRI HEMEN TALUKDAR Vs STATE OF ASSAM on 17 September 2026
GAHC010186002026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2552/2026 SRI HEMEN TALUKDAR S/O-LT. NARAYAN TALUKDARVILLAGE-RAIT KUCHI, P.O-KUMAR KUCHI,P.S-NALBARI,DIST-NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010186002026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2552/2026
SRI HEMEN TALUKDAR
S/O-LT. NARAYAN TALUKDARVILLAGE-RAIT KUCHI, P.O-KUMAR
KUCHI,P.S-NALBARI,DIST-NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR. A DUTTA,MR B TAID
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby the petitioner, Sri Hemen Talukdar, has prayed for granting him bail after he was arrested in connection with Sessions Case No.100/2025 (arising out of Nalbari P.S. Case No. 202/2025) under Sections 109/328/103(1)/117(2)/329(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
Page No.# 2/2
3. TCR, as called for, has been received.
4. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he along with his wife trespassed into the residential campus of the informant and assaulted her husband and son with iron rod, as a result of which both of them sustained grievous injuries on their head and out of the two injured persons her husband succumbed to the injuries.
5. This is the third bail application on behalf of the petitioner.
6. The first bail application was rejected by this Court in view of sufficient incriminating material available against the petitioner.
7. The second bail application was rejected as recording of evidence in the case was yet to commence and having regard to the grave nature of the allegations, it would not be prudent to release the petitioner before recording of such evidence.
8. At present, the wife of the deceased has been examined as PW- 1 and the daughter of the deceased has been examined as PW-2 and the evidence of both the witnesses squarely implicate the petitioner.
9. Learned Additional PP submits that the son of the petitioner is also an eyewitness to the occurrence and admittedly the present petitioner resides in the same compound as the house of the victim where his son, who is yet to be examined, also resides and there is every possibility that the petitioner, given his aggressive character, shall intimidate or cause harm to the minor son of the deceased.
10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has a small child to take care of.
11. But it appears that the wife of the petitioner, who is also a co-accused, has been granted bail and presumably she is taking care of the child.
12. Having regard to the above, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant