Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010135322025 2025:GAU-AS:9853 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1405/2025 ABDUL WAHID AND ANR S/O- ABDUL AWAL MANDAL. R/O- VILL.- MARKAZ ROAD, WARD NO.19, HOJAI TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- HOJAI. DIST.-HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782435 2: GULZAR HUSSAIN S/O- BILAL UDDIN. R/O- VILL.- CHARAIJURIA. P.O.- BAJBATAMARI. P.S- KAMPUR. DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN--78242 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASASM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H A TALUKDAR, MS. P S LASKAR,MR. L R MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 31.07.2025 Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying for granting pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioners in connection with Hojai P. S. Case No. 184/2025, under Sections 115(2)/324/351/109/221/132/189/190/191/195 of BNS. The case diary, as called for, has already been received, and I have perused the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Their names have been reflected in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that the other accused persons named in the FIR have already been arrested. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the further investigation of the case, if they are granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail. In this context, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there are sufficient materials available in the case diary against the accused/petitioners, along with other accused persons. He submits that the petitioners not only disposed of beef flesh in the mandir premises but also assaulted some public belonging to different committees and also deterred the public servant while discharging their duties. Accordingly, he submits that this is not a fit case for granting the relief sought by the petitioners. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and Page No.# 3/3 upon perusal of the case diary and the statements made by the parties, as well as considering the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioners is necessary to unearth the facts of the case. Therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant