Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010156872025 2025:GAU-AS:10941 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1709/2025 SOHIDUR ISLAM S/O - HARUN RASHID, VILL - LANGJAR, P.O. - FAGUNAGAON, P.S. - MANIKPUR, DIST. - BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN - 783390. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MS. D BORA,MR S ISLAM,MR S H MAHMUD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 18-08-2025 Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Sohidur Islam, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Howly P.S. Case No. 79/2025 under Page No.# 2/3 Sections 319(2)/340(2)/336(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary is placed before the Court. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel that the petitioner is no way connected with the present case and he never went inside the examination hall, wherein the co-accused alleged to have been arrested with the allegation that he appeared in the examination on his behalf. 5. Thus, he submitted that the case is not at all attracted against him neither under Section 319(2) nor under Section 340(2) or 336(3) BNS, as alleged. 6. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the I.O. in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with some interim protection. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional PP submitted in this regard that he is the main culprit of the case and the co-accused only appeared in the examination on behalf of the present petitioner by changing the photographs and forging the Admit Card. The present petitioner is still absconding and his custodial detention is required to know the actual fact of the case and accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that this is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and on perusing the materials in the case diary and considering the materials available in the case diary and the nature of offence where one of the co-accused appeared in the examination on behalf of the petitioner by forging/exchanging the photographs in the Admit Card. 9. In view of the above, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Sohidur Islam in said Howly P.S. Case No. 79/2025 as his custodial detention may be required for the Page No.# 3/3 purpose of investigation of the case. 10. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner stand rejected. 11. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant