Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010184102025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1681/2025 JASHIM AHMED ALIAS JASHIM UDDIN AND 4 ORS. S/O ABDUL JALIL R/O VILL- SURJADAS P.O. BHAGBARI DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788720 2: NAJIM UDDIN S/O ABDUL NOOR R/O SHRIMANTA KANISHAIL P.O. KALIGANJ DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788720 3: JAYNAL UDDIN @ JOYNAL UDDIN S/O FOYJUL ISLAM @ FAYJUL HAQUE R/O VILL- KHAGKANDI P.O. KALIGANJ BAZAR DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788720 4: FOYJUL ISLAM @ FAYJUL HAQUE S/O LT. ABDUN NOOR R/O VILL- KHAGKANDI P.O. KALIGANJ B AZAR DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788720 Page No.# 2/4 5: MAHAMMED ALI S/O ATAUR RAHMAN VILL- BOLESWAR P.O. KALIGANJ BAZAR DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788720 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE LEARNED PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.S Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Karimganj P.S Case No. 317 of 2025 registered under Section 329(4)/303(2)/351(2)/74/324(5)/189(2)/109 of the B.N.S, 2023. 3. The F.I.R dated 06.07.2025 reveals that the petitioners armed with lethal weapons, attacked the victim and his family members, looted money and when the victim tried to prevent them, the accused persons/petitioners threatened with the weapons and assaulted his mother and that they created ruckus in the house. The informant further stated that the petitioners had brought 3 J.C.Bs and demolished Page No.# 3/4 their house. 4. Mr. H.R.A Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel submits that the petitioners had purchased the land from the relatives of the informant and that they are in possession of the said land. The informant had filed title suit which was dismissed for default by the concerned Court. Mr. H.R.A Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel also submits that the petitioners had prayed for initiation of proceedings under Section 163 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 which was allowed by the Court of Ld. Additional District Magistrate, Karimganj/Sribhumi and the informant and the family members were directed not to enter into the schedule land. As such, learned Sr. counsel submits that the land was in possession of the petitioners and not the informant and there was no occasion for the petitioners to demolish the house purportedly stated to be of the informant. 5. Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam submits that it is in the statement of the victim as well as other family members that the petitioners had come with 1(one) J.C.B and demolished the house of the informant and also destroyed articles which were there in the house. However, he fairly submits that there was no injury on the part of the informant, although he submits that few of the family members of the informant received minor injuries. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and carefully gone through the Case Diary. It is reflected in the facts of the case that the petitioners have approached the concerned Court to draw up a proceeding under Section 163 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 which shows that the petitioners were in possession of the said land and that the said Court allowed the application filed by the petitioners and had restrained the informant or his family members to enter into the schedule land. It is also noticed that the title suit filed by the Page No.# 4/4 father of the informant was also dismissed for default as the informant did not appear before the Ld. Trial Court. It is, as such, seen that the instant matter is, civil dispute to which the parties have sought remedies for their grievances before the appropriate Court of Law. Further, it is seen that no injuries were found on the informant. 7. it is noticed that the petitioners, after being released on interim bail vide order dated 22.07.2025, had appeared before the arresting authority and had given their statements which were accordingly recorded. It is also reflected that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation. 8. In view of the facts, this Court deems it fit to make the interim bail order dated 22.07.2025 absolute and under the conditions mentioned in the said order. 8. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant