Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010076262025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/851/2025 AMINUR ISLAM AND 7ORS S/O LT SABED ALI R/O JHAGRARPAR PT III DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 2: JULFIKAR ALI SARKAR @ JANU @ MOKTADUL S/O SOLEMAN ALI SARKAR R/O JHAGRARPAR PT III DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 3: BADRU ZAMAN SARKAR @ MINTU S/O LT SABED ALI R/O JHAGRARPAR PT III DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 4: HAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O LYT SABED ALI R/O JHAGRARPAR PT III DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 5: NURUZZAMAN SARKAR S/O LT SABED ALI R/O JHAGRARPAR PT III DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 6: SAJID ZAMAN @ SAJID ZAMAL S/O BADRU ZAMAN SARKAR R/O JHAGRARPAR PT III DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 7: MOHIBUL HOQUE S/O NURUL HOQUE R/O JHAGRARPAR PT III DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 8: ROFIQUL ISLAM S/O NURUL HOQUE R/O JHAGRARPAR PT III DIST DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPBY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : A W AMAN, MS. F BEGUM(P-2,3),MR M CHOUDHURY (P-2,3),A S CHOUDHURY,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ,MR. SURAJIT DAS Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR I HASSAN (INFORMANT),MR. S DIHINGIA(INFORMANT),MR. I H BARBHUIYA (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as Mr. I. Hassan, the learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Aminur Islam, (2) Julfikar Ali Sarkar @ Janu @ Moktadul, (3) Badru Zaman Sarkar @ Mintu, (4) Hafizur Rahman, (5) Nuruzzaman Sarkar, (6) Sajid Zaman @ Sajid Zamal, (7) Mohibul Hoque, and (8) Rofiqul Islam, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with the Dhubri P. S. Case No. 93/2025 under Sections 61(2)(a)/189(3)/126(2)/ 118(2)/109(1) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 23.02.2025, one Rezaul Islam had lodged an FIR before the In-charge of B.N. College TOP under the Dhubri Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR (the present petitioners) had accosted the brother of the informant, namely, Rafikul Islam and the minor son of the informant, namely, Hamza Afzal, while they were coming out of Magurmari Tiniali Jame Masjid after offering Maghrib Namaj and assaulted them with sword, iron rod, and iron hammer. The first informant has vividly described the acts attributed to each of the petitioners as to in what way they assaulted the brother of the informant and what Page No.# 3/5 weapons were used by them. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was a land dispute between both the parties and a meeting was going on in respect of the said dispute, when the alleged incident occurred, and there was a mutual altercation between both the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident occurred out of provocation and the appropriate provision of law, in which the case ought to have been registered is Section 122 of BNS, 2023, which prescribes much lesser punishment than what has been prescribed under the provisions under which the case has been presently registered. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that though, the victim sustained multiple injuries on his person, except one injury, i.e., injury sustained by him on the leg, other injuries were of simple nature, and the injuries sustained on leg is a single injury, which would not have been caused by assault by multiple accused persons. 7. He submits that the accusation in the FIR against all the petitioners is exaggerated, as only one grievous injury has been found on the body of the victim person. He also submits that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the investigation and, therefore, they may be allowed to go on bail. 8. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Dhubri P. S. Case No. 93/2025 and has submitted that the injury report shows that the petitioners sustained multiple injuries. 9. He also submits that the case diary also contains the photographs of the injuries sustained by the victim, which shows that several stitches were given on different part of the bodies, and the injuries on his leg was that of a Page No.# 4/5 compound fracture, where also several stitches were given. He also submits that as the incident occurred in an open field in front of a masjid, it was witnessed by independent witnesses, who have implicated all the present petitioners of having committed the offence against them in the FIR. 10. On the other hand, Mr. I. Hassan, the learned counsel appearing for the informant has also vehemently opposed the grant of the bail to the petitioners on the grounds that after the lodging of the FIR, the petitioners have been threatening the informant and his family members of killing them and in this respect, the informant has lodged a complaint before the police, and on the basis of which, a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/126 of BNSS, 2023 has also been initiated. 11. Mr. I. Hassan, the learned counsel appearing for the informant also submits that the informant has also lodged an FIR on 27.04.2025 against the petitioners of having threatened them after lodging of the FIR, and on the basis of the said FIR, a GD Entry has been made in the police station bearing GD Entry No. 563/2025. 12. He submits that the petitioners are given protection of anticipatory bail in this case, the witnesses as well as the informant would be vulnerable and would be threatened by the petitioners. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides, and have gone through the case diary. The perusal of injury report of the victim shows that the victim has sustained multiple injuries on several parts of his body, though, only one of the injuries was found to be grievous, however, other injuries, including cut injury and lacerated injuries, are also there, where stitches were given. 14. On the perusal of the case diary, it also appears that in their statement Page No.# 5/5 recorded under Section 181 of the BNSS, 2023, the witnesses have clearly implicated all the petitioners of having assaulted the victim. 15. Considering the fact that at this stage, there are clear implicating materials against all the petitioners in the case diary, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case, where the benefit of Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 may be granted to the petitioners at this stage of the investigation. 16. The prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. 17. Send back the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant