Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010182732025 2025:GAU-AS:13769 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2727/2025 MAINUL HOQUE AND ANR S/O IDRISH ALI PERMANENT ADDRESS- R/O VILL- CHATIAN P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM PIN-782124 PRESENT ADDRESS-R/O VILL- RUPAHI BHAKAT GAON, P.S. RUPAHIHAT DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782125. 2: IDRISH ALI S/O LATE AMIR UDDIN R/O VILL- CHATIAN P.S. JURIA DIST. NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C DAS, MR. H RAHMAN,MR S HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 15.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.C Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioners have prayed for grant of bail in connection with PRC Case No. 817/2025 under Section 120(B)/302 of IPC corresponding to Nagaon P.S Case No. 374/2012 . 3. The FIR dated 18.03.2012 reflects that the petitioners had called the son of the informant outside his house and with the help of other co- accused encircled him and that petitioner No. 1 shot at the victim and the other co-accused including petitioner No. 2 had killed the victim using dangerous weapons. The police, after registration of the said FIR, conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet under Section 120(B)/302 of the IPC against the petitioners and others. 4. Mr. R.C Das, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that in the charge-sheet, it is reflected that the petitioner was on anticipatory bail and that now he has prayed for regular bail. He further submits that while submitting the charge-sheet, the Arms Act provisions were not incorporated and that by showing the post-mortem report which reveals that the victim had died of head injuries caused by dangerous weapons, he submitted that the information given by the informant that the petitioner No. 1 had shot at the victim was incorrect. He has also placed the order by which the petitioner had surrendered before the Court and is behind the bars since then. On these grounds Mr. R.C Das, learned counsel Page No.# 3/3 for the petitioners has prayed for bail. 5. Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam has shown the conduct of the petitioners by showing the various orders of this Court. He had shown the order of this Court by which the petitioner was directed to surrender within 30(thirty) days and move a bail application and on the event of his moving the same the petitioner would be released on bail. However, he submitted that the petitioner never surrendered as ordered by this Court and a wrong stipulation was made in the charge-sheet that the petitioners were on anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioners had moved bail application a number of times and it was rejected by this Court. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made at the bar and on the stipulations made in the charge-sheet as well as opinion given by the Doctor, this Court does not deem it fit to release the petitioners on bail. 7. As such, the petition is rejected and dismissed at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant