Partly allowed

Jiaur Rahman and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026Bail Appln./2605/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application concerns alleged murder under BNS 2023. The court rejected bail for petitioner no.1 due to specific allegations of striking the victim on the head. However, it granted bail to petitioner nos 2 to 4 despite a dispute over intent, subject to a bail bond and surety to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners no. 2, 3, and 4 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety of like amount; Bail denied to petitioner no. 1.

Jiaur Rahman and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010190732026

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./2605/2026

¶5

JIAUR RAHMAN AND 3 ORS.

¶6

S/O ABDUL MANNAN VILL PATIA PATHER P.O PATIA CHAPORI, PIN-782122 P.S DHING DIST NAGAON ASSAM

¶7

2: RUHUL AMIN

¶8

S/O ABDUL MANNAN VILL PATIA PATHER P.O PATIA CHAPORI PIN-782122 P.S DHING DIST NAGAON ASSAM

¶9

3: NAZRUL ISLAM

¶10

S/O ABDUL MANNAN VILL PATIA PATHER P.O PATIA CHAPORI PIN-782122 P.S DHING DIST NAGAON ASSAM

¶11

4: ZAHIRUL ISLAM

¶12

ABDUL MANNAN VILL PATIA PATHER P.O PATIA CHAPORI PIN-782122 P.S DHING DIST NAGAON ASSA

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S G BARUAH, MS C SAIKIA,MR. B BORGOHAIN,MR. S NEOG

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 16.09.2026

¶21

Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. US Bora, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 i.e. the informant.

¶22

By this application, the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Dhing P.S. Case No. 166/2026 corresponding to GR Case No. 1479/2026 registered under Sections 103(1) as well as 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners were arrested and were put behind the bars since 72 days was lodged by the wife of the deceased on 03.07.2026 stating inter alia that when she and her husband was working in their own land, all the accused persons arrayed as such in the FIR including the petitioners came in a group with weapons in their hands near them and got into a heated argument with herself and her husband. The informant further stated that the land dispute was going between the accused persons and the deceased since long and that during the argument on the instigation of the other accused persons i.e from accused nos. 2 to 8, accused no. 1 i.e. petitioner no.1 herein had struck on the head of her husband with a machete, which was left on the head itself. The informant also stated that two persons out of them pull the machete out from the head. She thereafter stated that others have also assaulted her as well as her husband in other parts of the body, which resulted in the death of her husband.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the story narrated in the FIR is not the full story. She stated that the petitioners got into the tussle

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

with the victim and her husband because of the land dispute and that they acted in self defence when the victim party had attacked them. She further submits that there was no intention to kill in asmuchas two of the accused persons had taken out the machete from the head of the victim.

¶26

Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the perusal of the Case Diary submits that the independent witness have stated that all the accused persons including the petitioners have attacked the victim and his wife. He also submits that the postmortem report of the deceased shows that they hit on the head was to the extent of 7cmX2.5cm. He as such submits that the petitioners should not be released on bail and he also submits that specific allegation is made against the petitioner no.1. He further submits that the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 183 of BNSS.

¶27

Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Senior Counsel submits that the complicity of the petitioners were writ large in the FIR and that specific allegation is against the petitioner no.1, who had given blow on the head of the deceased, who was working on his own land. He also submits that few of the accused persons, who were enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail are threatening the informant and has prayed to take that also into account while dealing with the present application.

¶28

Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds as follows:

¶29

The specific allegation is made against the petitioner no.1, who is stated to have given the blow on the head of the deceased with his machete but it is also stated therein that he had done on the instigation given by the other petitioners as well as other accused persons and the postmortem report although does not reveal that the deceased died of the head injury but the head injury was to the

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

extent of 7cmX2.5cm and as such, this Court deems it fit not to enlarge petitioner no.1 at this stage. However, in respect of petitioner nos. 2 to 4, there appears no overt act being committed by them and as such, this Court deems it fit to enlarge them on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one local surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Nagaon, under the following conditions:

¶32

i) the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶33

ii) the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case.

¶34

iii) the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the concerned Court.

¶35

Petition is disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Jiaur Rahman and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiaur Rahman and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases