SOMOTULLAH SHEIKH @ SOMTULLAH v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
AB/1504/2025 · 2025-09-17
Pranjal Das
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15100 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15100 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010141492025
2025:GAU-AS:12879
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1504/2025 SOMOTULLAH SHEIKH @ SOMTULLAH SON OF LATE KERAMAT ALI R/O VILL- BHASSANIR CHAR PT. I, P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM 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,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 18.09.2025
1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. The Case Diary as called for has been received.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not
Page No.# 2/2 yet completed and it is in progress.
4. Upon producing the Case Diary I perused relevant portions thereof. In the alleged incident, there in stated to have been one death and also victim suffering grievous injuries.
5. Perused the postmortem report and the findings of the nature of injuries therein which are compatible with the alleged assault.
6. It is pointed out by the learned prosecution that there are implications against the present petitioner as well and several witnesses have stated therein, the presence and involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.
7. The FIR named several persons including the present petitioner.
8. In a case of this nature, where the alleged offences are stated to have taken place between 2 (two) groups of persons resulting in death and serious injuries and keeping in mind that the investigation is still in progress, the possibility of requirement of custodial interrogation of the concerned persons cannot be ruled out altogether.
9. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage.
10. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
11. Send back the Case Diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant