Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010194412025 2025:GAU-AS:12921 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2097/2025 SAIFUL ISLAM AND ANR SON OF ABDUL LATIF R/O VILL- KANHARA P.S. GARAIMARI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL LATIF R/O VILL- KANHARA P.S. GARAIMARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A HUSSAIN (INFORMANT),N HASAN(INFORMANT),MR. B K SEN(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 18.09.2025 Page No.# 2/4 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents as well as Mr. B. K. Sen, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Saiful Islam and Saddam Hussain, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Goraimari P.S. Case No.23/2025, under Sections 296/117(2)/118(2)/109/74/3(5) of BNS with added Sections 103/61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 27.02.2025, one Nousad Ali Ahmed had lodged an FIR, naming therein nine (09) accused persons, including the present petitioners, inter-alia, alleging that the family members of the present petitioners, trespassed into the house of the informant and assaulted the brother of the informant and his uncle and in the assault, the brother of the informant, Nousad Ali Ahmed, succumbed to injuries and internally sustained grievous hurt. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is for the second time, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail. On earlier occasion, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in AB 998/2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while rejecting anticipatory bail application on earlier occasion, the medical report of the injured victims were not there in the case diary, whereas, further the statement of the victims were also not recorded at that point of time. He submits that by now sufficient periods have been lapsed and the statement of the victims might have Page No.# 3/4 been recorded and therefore, he has filed the second bail application. 6. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Goraimari P.S. Case No.23/2025 and submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against both the petitioners. She submits that the statements of the victims have also recorded and they have implicated the petitioners in the offence alleged in the FIR. She further submits that the photographs of the injuries or sustained by the victims also there in the case diary, which will reveal the seriousness of the allegation made against the petitioners. She therefore prays for rejecting the anticipatory bail application. 7. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the informant has also submitted similar that of statement of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and vehemently oppose the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. He submits that the brother of the informant had succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and the uncle of the informant also sustained severe serious injuries on his person. He submits that this is not a case of false implications as medical reports, photographs and post-mortem report reveals the truth. He, therefore, prays for dismissing the anticipatory bail application. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have gone through the case diary of Goraimari P.S. Case No.23/2025. On earlier occasion, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there were sufficient incriminating materials against both the accused persons. In the meanwhile, some more witnesses have been examined and there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners in the case diary, which do not justify allowing them to go on anticipatory bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the Page No.# 4/4 petitioners’ stands rejected at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. 10. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant