Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010190862025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2060/2025 RUKIA KHATUN W/O MAHAR ALI R/O BAHATI CHAR P.S. GOALPARA RPS DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MISS. P M AHMED,MR A AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A DHAR (INFORMANT),MR I CHAKMA(INFORMANT),MR. S. K. CHAKMA(INFORMANT),MS. D GHOSH(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 10.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Rukia Khatun, apprehending arrest in connection with Goalpara River P.S. Case No. 12/2025 registered u/s Page No.# 2/2 103(1)/3(5) of BNS. 3. The case arose out of an ejahar which emerges that the accused persons are family members and they have been quarrelling with each other over land dispute and that, on the day of the incident there was assault on the deceased, Mojid Ali leading to his death. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation has progressed and present petitioner happens to be a woman and that her anticipatory bail may be considered. 5. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and points out the relevant portions including the post-mortem report. He further submits that the present petitioner is named in the FIR with direct allegation against her. The same also find support from the investigating materials, including the statement of the eye witnesses. 6. Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 opposes the bail petition. 7. Considering the nature of the allegations and the materials revealed and the continuance of the investigation – it may not be a proper case for granting of anticipatory bail at this stage, which accordingly stands rejected. 8. Return the case diary. 9. This disposes of the anticipatory bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant