Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010175592026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1934/2026 QUAZI SAAD UDDIN ALIAS SAD UDDIN AND 7 ORS. SON OF LATE ABDUL KHALIQUE VILLAGE TATIRBAND MULLAGRAM, P.O. KANAIBAZAR, P.S. PATHARKANDI, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI (ARIMGANJ) ASSAM, PIN 788724 2: ASRAF HUSSAIN @ ASRAF UDDIN SON OF AMAD UDDIN R/O VILLAGE FARIDKUNA PANIALA P.O. KANAI BAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) ASSAM PIN 788724 3: JAMIL HUSSAIN @ BABUL UDDIN SON OF AMAD UDDIN R/O VILLAGE FARIDKUNA PANIALA P.O. KANAI BAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) ASSAM PIN 788724 4: ZIAUL HAQUE @ JIYAUL UDDIN SON OF AMAD UDDIN R/O VILLAGE FARIDKUNA PANIALA P.O. KANAI BAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) ASSAM PIN 788724 5: QUAZI MD SADIQUE AKHTAR @ SADIK AKTAR SON OF QUAZI ATIQUR RAHMAN R/O VILLAGE- MULLAGRAM P.O. KANAIBAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) ASSAM PIN -788724 Page No.# 2/5 6: QUAZI MD SALIM AKHTAR @ SALIM UDDIN SON OF QUAZI ATIQUR RAHMAN R/O VILLAGE MULLAGRAM P.O. KANAIBAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) ASSAM PIN 788724 7: KAZI MD SUYEL AHMED @ SUHEL AHMED SON OF LATE JAMAL UDDIN VILLAGE TATIRBAND MULLAGRAM P.O. KANAIBAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) ASSAM PIN 788724 8: ABDUL HEKIM @ UKIL UDDIN SON OF BASIR UDDIN VILLAGE ALAPUR P.O. KANAIBAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) ASSAM PIN 78872 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY,J M SULAIMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, R KHA (FOR INFORMANT),MR. M I HUSSAIN (FOR INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 14.09.2026 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J.M. Page No.# 3/5 Sulaiman, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Also heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned Counsel for the informant. 2. By this application, the petitioners, who were eight in numbers have prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 105/2026 registered under Sections 109(1) /118(2) /126(2) /351(2) / 324(4)/ 190/ 61(2)/ 191(3)/ 117(2)/ 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners are apprehending arrest was lodged on 04.08.2026 by the informant Ms. Rabia Begum stating about two incidents. First one was around 3 years ago, where she has alleged that the accused persons mentioned as such in the FIR had injured her father and her three brothers as a result of which, her father lodged the case before the Police and the trial was going on. She stated that the accused persons i.e. petitioners had threatened her father to withdraw the case but her father had denied. The second incident that she talks of happened on the day before she lodged the ejahar. She stated that on 03.08.2026 at around 06:00 pm, when her father went to a market by driving his vehicle and when he parked it and he de- boarded from the car, the accused persons, who also came in a vehicle parked their vehicle in front of her father’s vehicle and a quarrel ensued. She stated that accused no.1 i.e. the petitioner no.1 asked her father to withdraw the case and when her father refused to withdraw the same, the petitioner no.1 had attacked her father and scolded him with filthy language. She further stated that when her brother reached the place of occurrence, the accused persons assaulted her brothers and injured them grievously. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a mutual altercations between the informant side as well as the alleged accused side on the context of parking the vehicle and that the petitioners have also lodged an FIR which is earlier in point of time according to the learned Counsels, wherein the Page No.# 4/5 petitioners were assaulted and they had sustained injuries. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on perusal of the Case Diary submits that the injuries on the father of the informant as well as the brothers were simple in nature and the same were caused by blunt weapon. He submits that there was a mutual fight amongst the parties and both sides have sustained injuries. 5. The learned Counsel for the informant, Mr. M.I. Hussain, also supports the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and submits that the informant side has sustained injuries because of the assault made by the petitioners. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that the petitioners have lodged the ejahar in earlier point of time and that the injuries sustained by the informant’s father and brother is simple, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 on pre arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one local surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority, under the following conditions: i) the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 will appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. ii) the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when called for. iii) the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iv) the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority. Page No.# 5/5 6. It is further noticed that petitioner nos. 5 and 6 were already enlarged on interim pre arrest bail vide order dated 20.08.2026 on the condition that they should appear before the Investigating Officer and get their statement recorded. 7. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on perusal of the Case Diary submits that the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 have appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements were recorded. As such, it is seen that the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 have cooperated with the investigation and as such, this Court deems it fit to make the order dated 20.08.2026 absolute with regard to petitioner nos. 5 and 6 on the condition that they should follow the conditions and directions given in this bail order in respect of other petitioners. 8. Petition is disposed of. ` JUDGE Comparing Assistant