[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs State Of Assam on 8 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010264322025
2026:GAU-AS:272
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3912/2025
RINA BEGAM BARBHUIYA ALIAS RINA BEGUM BARBHUIYA
WIFE OF LATE IMRAN HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA, RESIDENT OF
KULICHERRA, P.O. DHOLAI, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. PIN-788161
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. P. Borthakur, Addl.PP, ASSAM,
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.01.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.01.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : No.
operative part of the judgment ?
Page No.# 2/5
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)
1. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of
Assam.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for granting of bail to the
accused/petitioner namely Rina Begam Barbhuiya alias Rina
Begum Barbhuiya, in connection with P.R. Case No. 2156/2025
under Section 61 (2)/103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Cachar, Silchar.
3. The informant who is the brother of the deceased lodged an FIR
on 21.08.2025 alleging inter alia that the wife of the deceased i.e.
accused No. 1 was in an illicit relationship with the accused No. 2,
which was evident from the Whatsapp chats recovered from the
mobile phone of the accused No. 2, and it was revealed from the said
Whatsapp conversations that the accused persons had been conspiring
to kill the deceased and that it had also come to light that the accused
persons misappropriated an amount of approximately Rs. 20,00,000/-
kept in the house of the deceased for business purposes. On
Page No.# 3/5
10.08.2025, the deceased suddenly died at home. He was taken to
Silchar Medical College & Hospital, where he was declared brought
dead.
4. The case has already been charge-sheeted and committed to the
Court of Sessions and the case is pending for consideration of charge,
and in the meantime, the petitioner, who has a 4-month-old child with
her, has spent considerable number of days in custody.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the
Court to the FSL report, wherein it has been found that no poison was
found in the viscera examination of the deceased. It is accordingly
submitted that the very basis of the prosecution case is that the
petitioner had administered poison to the deceased resulting in his
death, and there is no such indication in the FSL report, the rest of the
allegations are the matters to be considered at the trial, but there is
no justification for further incarceration of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that what a para-material is available in the charge-sheet
regarding administering of Ativan tablets (lorazepam) is confined to
the statement of the accused-petitioner recorded by the police, which
is otherwise inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into
consideration for the purpose of deciding the bail application.
6. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that
there is sufficient material in the CD against the present petitioner,
who has led the police to the recovery of strips of Ativan tablets from
her house.
7. Countering the aforesaid submissions, it is contended by learned
Page No.# 4/5
counsel for the petitioner that as is apparent from the charge-sheet
itself, the Ativan tablets were prescribed to the petitioner by Dr.
Ratandip Bose on 27.05.2025 as the petitioner is a diagnosed epilepsy
patient suffering from breakthrough seizures, sleep disturbances,
anxiety and neurological symptoms, which had been confirmed by Dr.
Ratandip Bose himself during police investigation. This explains the
recovery of medicine capsules/tablet strips from the dustbin of the
house of the petitioner, who was consuming the said medicine for her
own treatment. Further, there is no medical or forensic material to
establish that the deceased died due to overdose of Ativan tablets.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
9. From the FSL report, it cannot be denied that there is no
evidence to show that the deceased died as a result of
Ativan/Lorazepam overdose or from administration of any other
poison. The accusations against the present petitioner are largely
based on her own statements before the police, which are inadmissible
in evidence in view of under Section 23 to 25 of the Evidence Act.
Moreover, although it is contended that the conspiracy angle has been
discovered from the messages exchanged between the accused
persons, no such message has been pointed out or annexed to the
charge-sheet, so as to enable the Court to take a view one way or the
other.
10. Considering the above state of affairs, as well as the fact that the
petitioner has spent a long duration of number of days in custody, and
along with her 4-month-old baby, and also the fact that the case is
Page No.# 5/5
now pending for consideration of charge, further detention of the
petitioner is not warranted.
11. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
12. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail of Rs.
50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court. It is further provided that the petitioner shall
regularly participate/appear on each date fixed before the Court,
unless exempted for sufficient reasons, and shall participate in the trial
when it commences.
13. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
