Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010196432025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2118/2025 MD BHUYAN MANDAL AND 4 ORS. SON OF NUR ISLAM P/R N.C. NO. 3 NANGLICHAR P.S. SHYAMPUR P.O. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784125 2: MAFIZ UDDIN AHMED S/O ABDUL AJIZ P/R N.C. NO. 3 NANGLICHAR P.S. SHYAMPUR P.O. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125 3: AINAL HAQUE S/O BASMA ALI P/R N.C. NO. 3 NANGLICHAR P.S. SHYAMPUR P.O. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125 PHONE NO. 9864184195 4: MD. JAHURUL ISLAM S/O MD. UMED ALI P/R DHANSIRIKHUTI P.S. UDALGURI P.O. BHALUKMARI Page No.# 2/3 DIST. UDALGURI ASSAM PIN-784508 PHONE NO. 9101575058 5: AJIM UDDIN S/O HAJARAT ALI P/R BI 3 BABGKUM N.C. NO. 3 NANGLICHAR P.S. SHYAMPUR P.O. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125 PHONE NO. 967817705 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, N O POMONG,M BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A. ALI(INFORMANT),A. K. KANU (INFORMANT),MR M AHMED(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mrs. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, (1) Md. Bhuyan Mandal (2)Mafiz Uddin Ahmed (3) Ainal Haque (4) Md. Jahurul Islam and (5) Ajim Uddin, apprehending Page No.# 3/3 arrest in connection with Shyampur P.S. Case No.14/2025 (corresponding to GR Case No. 588/2025) under Sections 191(2)/191(3)/310(2)/324(4)/329(4) of the BNS Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter may be listed after two weeks and up-to-date case diary may be called for. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have land dispute and have been falsely implicated the present petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation in the case diary has not revealed any such land dispute. It is further submitted that apart from the petitioner being named in the FIR, one of the witnesses has stated about the presence of the present petitioners at the place of occurrence. 6. Considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the considered view that it would not be a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 8. Return the case diary. 9. This disposes of the bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant