Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2371/2026 of SAIDUR RAHMAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 23 August 2026
GAHC010161702026 2026:GAU-AS:12119 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2371/2026 SAIDUR RAHMAN SON OF ISMAIL HUSSAIN VILL SHILA PS BARPETA DIST BARPETA ASSAM. PH. NO 9859043615 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE
GAHC010161702026
2026:GAU-AS:12119
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2371/2026
SAIDUR RAHMAN
SON OF ISMAIL HUSSAIN
VILL SHILA
PS BARPETA
DIST BARPETA
ASSAM. PH. NO 9859043615
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. A ALI
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF 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.
ORDER
Date : 24-08-2026 Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bankim Sarma, learned Additional PP for the State.
2. Invoking section 483 BNSS, the petitioner herein is seeking regular bail in connection with Barpeta PS Case No. 231/2026 under section 80(2) BNS.
3. The FIR dated 29.06.2026 was lodged by the father of the deceased woman naming the husband/accused No. 1 (petitioner herein) and 4 (four) other accused persons. The allegations is that the deceased woman was married to the accused No. 1 and subsequently, the accused persons named in the FIR started demanding several lakhs of rupees for dowry and inflicted physical and mental torture upon her. Eventually, due to the inability to meet the said demand, the victim woman is stated to have been killed by the accused persons by hanging her.
4. The present petitioner is stated to be the husband of the deceased who was arrested on 30.06.2026 and is presently in judicial custody.
5. The learned counsel submits that after the incident, the petitioner did not try to abscond and he is already in judicial custody since his date of arrest and that perhaps investigation might have progressed in the meantime and keeping him in further detention might not be necessary.
6. From the FIR, I find that the initial allegation was about the present petitioner/husband of the deceased asking her to bring dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs. Further allegations are also made against the present petitioner. The investigation materials lend support to the allegations and the post mortem report indicate antemortem suicidal hanging.
7. Considering the serious nature of the alleged offences and the fact that the investigation is still under progress, the bail petition stands rejected at this stage.
8. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant