Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010098642025 2025:GAU-AS:9424 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AB/1436/2025 AKTAR ALI AND ANR SON OF HAZRAT ALI R/O BHASSANIRCHAR PART-I P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM 2: RAIJ UDDIN SK. @ RAIZUDDUN S/O LT. NUR ISLAM R/O BHASSANIRCHAR PART-I P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE Page No.# 2/3 HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 23-07-2025 Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Dhubri P. S. Case No. 56/2025 registered under Sections 61(2) (a)/189(2)/191(2)/191(3)/190/126(2)/118(2)/103(1)/351(3) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was admittedly dispute between the villagers of two villages and in the said dispute an altercation took place between the two groups wherein both the parties sustained injuries. However, one person died from the informant side and accordingly the present case was lodged by the informant. The dispute was for the cultivation of land. However, the FIR is lodged against 33 nos. of persons from the entire village and without stating any involvement of the particular accused-persons two of the co-accused/persons, namely, one Abdul Motin and Rahim Badsha has already been granted interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge and the present petition has been filed by the present two petitioners who are not involved in the alleged offence. However, these petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the I/O in further investigation of this case, if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest Page No.# 3/3 bail. 5. Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the post-mortem report it is seen that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of purporting stab injuries over the chest abdomen and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. He further submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners who were presently involved in the present case. Some of the witnesses also uttered about the petitioners alleging their presence at the time of the incident. Accordingly, it is submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the preset petitioners. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties, I have also perused the case record in the Case Diary and the statement made by the witnesses as well as some of the victims. It is seen that these two petitioners were not only present at the scene but they took active part in assaulting the victims as well as the deceased and they helped the other co-accused persons in assaulting the deceased. In view of this, I find that custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioners may be required and I find it not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to these petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant