Bail Appln./2181/2026 of NOOR HUSSAIN ALIAS NUR HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 13 August 2026

ORDER

14.08.2026 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sinhita

(BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Noor Hussain @ Nur Hussain, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 21.04.2026, in connection with Mankachar P.S. Case No.51/2026 under Section 103(1)/109(1)/118(2)/296/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for grant of bail.

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR, lodged by one Afruza Khatun, on 13.04.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR is that on 12.04.2026, at about 10:00 a.m., one Nur Salam, Nur Hussain, Abdul Samad, Alom, Mireza Khatun, Azime Khatun, Hunufa Khatun and Nal Banu Khatun and others had an altercation with the husband of the informant, namely, Nur Alom and when the informant and her son Akhirul Islam and her nephew Zakir Hussain obstructed the accused persons, then they become excited and used filthy languages against them and brought weapons from their house and hit her family members with dao and dagger etc. on various parts of their bodies including head with intention to kill them. As a result, they sustained serious injuries on their persons and the local public rescued and taken them to Mankachar Hospital for treatment and her husband Nur Alom and her son Akhirul were also referred to Solace Hospital, Goalpara, as they got serious injuries and her husband was put on ventilation and his condition was critical and subsequently, he suffered demise on 13.04.2026.

4. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 21.04.2026 and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 115 days and that after completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the accused persons solely on the basis of confessional statement of the present accused and that some of the co-accused are absconding, for which the case could not be committed and pending at the stage of appearance. Mr. Dutta further submits that in connection with the same occurrence, the accused also lodged one FIR, upon which Mankachar P.S. Case No.49/2026 has been registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet in the said case also and since the informant and other co-accused are absconding, non- bailable warrant of arrest were issued against them and that the accused will appear regularly before the Trial Court and will face the trial and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this application.

5. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the accused is the main culprit who caused serious injuries to the husband of the informant over his head and consequently, he suffered demise and that the case has already been charge-sheeted under Section 103(1)/109(1)/118(2)/296/3(5) of BNS and that the witnesses are yet to be examined and if the accused is enlarged on bail, then the possibility of influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court.

7. It appears that on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the present accused and from the materials collected in the case diary, which is available in the scanned copy of the record of the learned Trial Court, indicates that the present accused is the person, who had inflicted serious injuries on the person of the husband of the informant. Undoubtedly, the offences are serious in nature and the case is pending at the stage of appearance and without examination of the material witnesses, if the accused is enlarged on bail, then it would cause prejudice to the prosecution side.

8. It is well settled in catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, that the Court may only make a prima facie assessment of the materials and detail examination of evidence, credibility of witnesses or conclusion of merit is impermissible. In the instant case, on making a prima facie assessment of the materials available on the record, a prima facie case, against the present accused, appears to be made out.

9. Having considered the aforementioned facts and circumstances and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the pubnishment prescribed for the same, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused at this stage.

10. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE