Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010095292025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1064/2025 NAWSAD ALI AND 3 ORS S/O LATE ATOWAR HUSSAIN R/O VILL-BHASSANIR CHAR PT.I, NEAR 327 NO. HAZIPARA L.P. SCHOOL, P.S. DHUBRI, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: SAIFUL ISLAM S/O LATE ATOWAR HUSSAIN R/O VILL-BHASSANIR CHAR PT.I NEAR 327 NO. HAZIPARA L.P. SCHOOL P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM 3: ABDUL HANIF SK. S/O ABDUL SALAM R/O VILL-BHASSANIR CHAR PT.I NEAR 327 NO. HAZIPARA L.P. SCHOOL P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM 4: SAHA ALAM SK. S/O JABED ALI R/O VILL-BHASSANIR CHAR PT.I NEAR 327 NO. HAZIPARA L.P. SCHOOL P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 15.05.2025 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Nawsad Ali, 2. Saiful Islam, 3. Abdul Hanif Sk and 4. Saha Alam Sk who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Dhubri PS Case No. 70/2025 under Sections 191 (2)/ 191(3)/ 190/118(2)/109(1)/324(5)/305 (a) of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 12.02.2025, one Rahela Khatun has lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bazar TOP, AMCO Road, Dhubri, inter alia, alleging that on 07.02.2025 at about 7:00 a.m. one altercation took place between the two groups one led by one Abdul Motin and another led by Naushad Ali and during the altercation one Sujab Ali, who is the brother of Naushad Ali. Later on, about 150-200 unknown persons of Naushad Ali Group came to the house of the informant and damaged the house and cause serious injuries to the husband of the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR to lodging of the instant case from the petitioners side one Saiful Islam had lodged an FIR in Page No.# 3/4 respect of the said incident which occurred on 07.02.2025 at about 7:30 a.m. in which the brother of Naushad Ali succumbed to injure and many other persons were also assaulted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though there was a group altercation between the two groups, the present petitioners having assaulted the victim Hajrat Ali and they have not committed any offence. It is also submitted that the instant FIR was lodged on 12.02.2025, i.e., after 5 days of the alleged incident which occurred on 07.02.2025 and therefore lot of afterthought has been involved and fabricated allegations has been made against the present petitioner. He also submits that the present petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation therefore, they may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel has produced the case diary of Dhubri PS Case No. 70/2025 and has submitted that in the injury report which is available in the case diary it appears that apart from sustaining multiple injuries the victim also sustained grievous injuries inasmuch as his hand was fractured. He also submits that there are several witnesses who have implicated each of the petitioners in the offence alleged in the FIR. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary. 7. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that though one of the person from group of the petitioners has died however it appears that the allegations against the petitioners regarding retaliatory action by than in respect to death of Sujab Ali. It also appears from the case diary that the victim has sustained grievous injuries on his person apart from sustaining multiple injuries and there are Page No.# 4/4 sufficient incriminating materials against all the petitioners in the case diary. 8. In view of the incriminating materials against the petitioners in the Case Diary. This Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant