Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2421/2026 of NUR HUSSAIN ALIAS NUR HUSSAIN SHEIKH ALIAS NUR HOSSAIN SK Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 27 August 2026
GAHC010177582026 2026:GAU-AS:12430 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2421/2026 NUR HUSSAIN ALIAS NUR HUSSAIN SHEIKH ALIAS NUR HOSSAIN SK S/O LT TIAH ALI MIAH, R/O VILL BANACHAPA POKIA, PS FAKIRGANJ, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM
GAHC010177582026
2026:GAU-AS:12430
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2421/2026
NUR HUSSAIN ALIAS NUR HUSSAIN SHEIKH ALIAS NUR HOSSAIN SK
S/O LT TIAH ALI MIAH, R/O VILL BANACHAPA POKIA, PS FAKIRGANJ, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR.
A TARAFDAR,A MISHRA,MR. SURAJIT DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR R A AHMED(INFORMANT),MR. B
HUSSAIN(INFORMANT),MR. A A MONDAL(INFORMANT),MD B ISLAM(INFORMANT)
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.
ORDER
Date : 28-08-2026 Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional PP for the State and Mr. Md. B. Islam, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner namely, Nur Hussain @ Nur Hussain Sheikh @ Nur Hossain Sk, is seeking regular bail under section 483 BNSS in connection with Fakirganj PS Case No. 77/2026 under section 61(2)/123/127(2)/117(2)/103(2) BNS.
3. On 04.07.2026, an FIR was lodged by one Moidul Islam before the Fakirganj PS stating that on 06.02.2026, his brother namely, Safiur Alam (deceased) had gone to his in-laws place but later on, he fell sick and was admitted to Metro hospital. He was brought back to the residence on 10.02.2026, but soon after he again became serious due to which he was taken to Solace Hospital, Goalpara, but he died there. Based on the aforesaid information, UD Case No. 05/2026 was registered.
4. Subsequently, it appears that the informant side was not very satisfied with the non completion of the investigation in the UD case and they lodged another complaint dated 04.07.2026 before the same police station, naming 8 (eight) accused persons and unnamed others. The present petitioner is named as A3 in the FIR.
5. The gist of the allegation is that the deceased was married to the petitioner’s sister and had visited his in-laws place on that day but he was subjected to torture and poison and subsequently, he died.
6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was filed several months after the filing of the complaint resulting in the registration of UD case and contends as to whether the subsequent FIR would be maintainable. It is also submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 08.07.2026 and has been in under trial detention for about 2
(two) months.
7. The CD was called for and has been received along with the bail objection.
8. Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional PP submits that as per the opinion regarding the death, the deceased died of poison due to organophosphorus. The prosecution has also drawn the attention of this Court to certain photographs which were collected during the investigation and submits that the same revealed signs of torture upon the victim.
9. The learned counsel for the informant, Mr. B. Islam, submits that the accused persons are responsible for committing the heinous crime of pre- planned murder of the victim after torturing and poisoning him and that the informant’s side are at the risk of facing threats from the accused and granting bail at this stage would prejudice them.
10. I have carefully gone through the details of the bail objection submitted by the IO.
11. The IO has contended that while there has been some progress in the investigation but important aspects and leads are still being looked into and explored. The contention of the IO in the bail objection is that investigation is a crucial stage and granting bail at this stage might hamper with the investigation.
12. I have given my consideration to the materials, the submissions and also the contentions of the IO. I have perused the statements of some of the witnesses flagged by the learned Additional PP.
13. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be prudent to refuse the bail for the moment while the investigation is still proceeding.
14. In such view of the matter, the bail petition stands rejected at this stage.
15. Bail petition stands dismissed and disposed of.
16. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant