Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010088552025 2025:GAU-AS:7094 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/962/2025 AZIZUL HOQUE S/O- LATE SAKER ALI, R/O- BORBILA AMKHANDA, PS DHUBRI, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783324 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MS S A KHALIFA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 02.06.2025 Heard Mrs. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No.395/2024, registered under Sections 189(3) /329(3) /324(2) /118(2)/74 of the BNS, along with added Section 103 of the BNSS [corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1291/2024]. 3. The updated Case Diary, as called for, has already been received, and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Devi, that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved in the alleged offence. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner went to the place of the incident and tried to stop the quarrel that took place between two neighbours over a property dispute. She further submitted that the petitioner’s earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court upon perusal of the case diary, but the present application has been filed on a new ground, i.e., the advanced stage of pregnancy of his wife. She also submitted that one of the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court, and therefore, considering the case of the present petitioner on the ground of parity, she prays that the petitioner may be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail, for which he is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the further investigation of the case. Page No.# 3/4 5. In this context, Ms. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that from the materials available in the case diary, the case of the accused/petitioner cannot be considered on the same footing as that of the co- accused who has already been granted bail by this Court. She further submitted that the witnesses have specifically implicated the present petitioner, stating that he assaulted the deceased. Moreover, one of the witnesses has stated that the petitioner bit the chest of a female victim, causing injury. Thus, she submits that the petitioner not only assaulted the deceased, who subsequently succumbed to his injuries, but also assaulted the other victim. Accordingly, she contends that this is not at all a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage, and that custodial interrogation may be necessary for the interest of the investigation. Hence, she raised objections to the prayer made by the petitioner’s side. 6. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides, and upon perusal of the case diary along with the case record, it is seen that the petitioner’s earlier bail application was rejected by this Court upon perusal of the case diary, wherein it is specifically mentioned that accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 13 actively participated in the assault on the deceased, resulting in serious head injuries, which led to his death during treatment in the hospital. The ground of parity cannot be extended to the present petitioner with that of the co-accused who has already been granted bail. It is evident from the case diary that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner, showing that he played an active role in the assault. Furthermore, statements made by witnesses under Section 183 of the BNSS reveal that the petitioner not only participated in the assault on the deceased but also caused injury to another female victim by biting her on the chest. Page No.# 4/4 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and other relevant aspects of the case, I find that further custodial interrogation may be necessary for proper investigation. Thus, I do not find it justified to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner merely on the ground of his wife's pregnancy. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby rejected at this stage. 8. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 9. The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant