Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010129192025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1350/2025 RASHIDUL ISLAM AND ORS S/O- ABDUL MOTIN. VILL.- KATIMARI PATHER. P.O.-HERAPATI, P.S.- NAGAON SADAR. DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782002. 2: GULZAR HUSSAIN S/O- SIRAJUL ISLAM. VILL.- CHUTO RUPAHI P.O.- HERAPATI P.S.- NAGAON SADAR. DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782002. 3: MUSTAFUR RAHMAN. S/O- SURUJ JAMAN. VILL. AND P.O.- HERAPATI P.S.- NAGAON SADAR. DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782002 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MOTIUR RAHMAN, MR. O ULLAH,MR M RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.06 . 2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners (1) Rashidul Islam, (2) Gulzar Hussain and (3) Mustafizur Rahman, who have filed this application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, with prayer for pre-arrest bail, as they are apprehending in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No.140/2025 under Sections 61(2)/ 318(4)/ 316(2)/ 308(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 3. The FIR, unfolds that 2 weeks prior to 18.02.2025, accused Raju Das contacted the informant, an army personnel, working in the Gorkha Regiment and started conversation with the informant and offered gold in exchange of money. The informant asked the accused to show him his identity card and the accused sent a photograph of Aadhar Card and his named was written as Raju Das. Then the informant arranged a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- and went with his friend, Nanda Bahadur to a location at Haibargaon area. On 18.02.2025 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused Raju Das alongwith another 5/6 persons wrongly confined the informant in a house and looted Rs. 15,00,000/- and threatened him with dire consequences compelling the informant to escape. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials against all the petitioners. 5. I have also scrutinized the case diary. Page No.# 3/3 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 7. I have also considered the gravity of offence. The petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 8. It appears that investigation may adversely affected, if the petitioners are enlarged on pre-arrest bail. 9. There is no justified ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. 10. Anticipatory bail application stands rejected. 11. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant