Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2461/2026 of SEPHALI BIBI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 September 2026
GAHC010179882026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2461/2026 SEPHALI BIBI W/O OWAS ALI, R/O VILL JHAGRARPAR, PS DHUBRI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC
GAHC010179882026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2461/2026
SEPHALI BIBI
W/O OWAS ALI, R/O VILL JHAGRARPAR, PS DHUBRI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS, MD A RAHMAN,MR. A TARAFDAR,A
MISHRA,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
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.
O R D E R
17.09.2026
Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondents. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the petitioner, who has been in judicial custody since 14.07.2026 in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 262/2026, registered under Sections 61(2)/ 319(2)/ 105/ 90(2)/ 238(a) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The FIR was lodged on 13.07.2026. The gist of the allegations was that the petitioner, acting as an intermediary, took a couple who had come for treatment at the Dhubri Medical College Hospital with the co-accused and her husband in their supposedly and where, she underwent some abortion procedure. Thereafter, she was sent home, though her complaints continued. Later, she was taken to Barpeta Medical College Hospital, where she died. The informant has stated that he came to know that the supposed doctor and her husband, to whom the petitioner had taken them, is actually not a doctor and only a nurse. The learned Additional PP, opposing the bail, submits that because of the negligent and criminal acts of the accused persons, the informant's wife lost her life and that there may be a racket involved in these things as well. Nevertheless, as there is reasonable progress in investigation and the petitioner has also been in custody for more than 65 days, if suitable conditions are imposed, perhaps she can be granted bail; as otherwise, continuing her under-trial detention may not serve so much purpose at this stage. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Dhubri and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) she shall not abscond;
(ii) she shall cooperate in the remaining investigation;
(iii) she shall not hamper or tamper with evidence;
(iv) she shall render cooperation to the IO.
(v) she shall not indulge in any illegal activities, including any activities of the kind for which she is being prosecuted. Violation of the bail conditions will lead to cancellation of the bail. This bail application stands allowed and disposed of. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant