Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010139142025 2025:GAU-AS:11652 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1505/2025 RAHIM UDDIN ALIAS ROHIM UDDIN AND 2 ORS SON OF SAHAB UDDIN R/O VILL- KABARIBOND, P.S. PATHARKANDI, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM 2: RAJU AHMED S/O HABIBUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- KANAIBAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM 3: NOOR UDDIN @ NUR AHMED SON OF MOIN UDDIN R/O VILL- KHATLUNI P.O. KANAIBAZAR P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.08.2025 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Add. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 320/2024 registered under Section 318/336(3)/340(2)/115(2)/126(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR dated 07.10.2024 reveals that the petitioners were trying to capture the business establishment of the informant by forging documents illegally and that the accused persons, i.e., the petitioners were involved in a conspiracy for illegal possession of the said establishment. It is also stated that when the informant side tried to visit the said business establishment, the petitioners threatened them by showing lethal weapons. 4. Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the informant side are actually partners of the business establishment and that there is a quarrel amongst them and that both side have lodged complaints. He also submits that vide Order dated 22.07.2025, the petitioners were enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail subject to the conditions mentioned therein and in compliance of one of the conditions, the petitioners had appeared before the Investigating Officer within the time stipulated and their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer. 5. Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Add. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that the FIR reveals that the petitioners had threatened the informant’s Page No.# 3/3 side that too with lethal weapons. However, he had stated that in pursuant to the interim order, the petitioners have gone and had given their statements before the Investigating Officer. 6. In view of the submissions made and in view of the compliance of the conditions made in the interim order and in view of the allegations and counter allegations from both the sides, this Court finds it fit that the interim pre-arrest bail order may be made absolute and also, it is directed that the petitioners will comply with the conditions mentioned in the said interim order dated 22.07.2025. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant