[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 5 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010203932025
2026:GAU-AS:1509
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2229/2025
SRI RAJESH KUMAR KEWAT
S/O SRI SHYAM BAHADUR
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 25, SWAHID DILIP CHAKRABORTY PATH, TARUN
NAGAR, PS BHANGAGARH, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, OTOLI KITS,MS. A Y SUMI,S YESMIN,MR K
THAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
Date : 05.02.2026
Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Page No.# 2/4
2. By this subsequent application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,
2023 the petitioner, namely, Rajesh Kumar Kewat, has prayed for pre-
arrest bail in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 96/2025, registered
under Sections 80(2) of BNS, 2023.
3. This is the subsequent bail petition as the earlier bail petition was
rejected on 13.08.2025 in AB 1352/2025.
4. The gist of the allegation in the FIR given rise to police case of
harassment and demand of dowry by the accused persons which ultimately
led to the death of the victim. As per the PM and FSL report death was due
to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.
5. Seen the progress of investigation after the date of rejection. The
petitioner has annexed some whatsapp chats with the bail petition and filed
an additional affidavit to submit a certificate under Section 63 BSA. It is
submitted that some witnesses have stated about demand of
Rs.20,00,000/- by the other family members but the prosecution submits
that no such materials are there with regard to the present petitioner,
though in this own statement he has stated about some aspect of demand
of money by him and his family members.
6. I find that the allegation of demand of dowry is more directed
against the family members rather than the petitioner and his self
incriminating statement cannot be taken into account as it is not
admissible. Secondly, one the main allegations against him appears that he
did not give time to the victim and in the meantime, she was facing some
harassment from his family members. The marriage endured for only three
Page No.# 3/4
months. The police has not sought to arrest this petitioner in the several
months that have elapsed since the date of last rejection of anticipatory
bail.
7. Considering the progress of investigation and other aspects indicated
above, I am of the considered that investigation may not be hampered if
the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail with conditions, at this stage.
Therefore, I am willing to accept this subsequent bail petition and, in the
event of arrest of the accused-petitioner, he shall be released on bail in
connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 96/2025, registered under
Sections 80(2) of BNS, 2023, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- with
one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting
authority.
8. The direction for bail is further subject to the condition(s) that the
accused-petitioner:
(a) shall render cooperation with the remaining investigation and
make himself available for examination;
(b) shall not hamper or tamper with evidence;
(c) shall not try to influence any witnesses; and
(d) shall not intimidate or harass the family members of the
deceased.
9. Violation or breach of condition(s) shall entail cancellation of the
bail.
10. The anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of.
Page No.# 4/4
11. Send back the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
