Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010205672025 2025:GAU-AS:12871 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2233/2025 MUBASHWAR AHMED ALIAS MUBASHAR AHMED S/OLATE ABDUL JALIL R/O VILL- MALOHU (BARUKATI) P.S. BHURAGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. M S HUSSAIN,MR. D K BAIDYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. K VERMA (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 18.09.2025 Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also earned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Mubashwar Ahmed @ Mubashar Ahmed, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Bhuragaon P.S. Case No. 49/2025 (corresponding to GR No. 1033/2025) under Section 61(2)/103(1)/118(2)/109 of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegations in the FIR dated 18.08.2025, lodged by one Md. Amadadul Islam stating inter alia that on the date of the incident i.e. on 16.08.2025, the FIR accused persons assaulted the informant’s brother and his associate, resulting in the death of the informant’s brother and grievous injuries to the associate. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. He has raised objection against the prayer of the petitioner. 5. Perused the case diary. The investigating officer has undertaken significant and extensive investigation which, however, is not yet complete. The investigating officer has also submitted bail objection against the prayer for bail. It is contended that the involvement of the accused persons in the brutal murder has been found, including by way of pre-planning and conspiracy. It is also contended that the FIR named accused persons have been attempting to destroy evidence and intimidate witnesses. The investigating officer has expressed the necessity of arrest and custodial interrogation of the accused persons for proper investigation. 6. It is further contended that grant of pre-arrest bail would hamper in investigation, indicating in this context that the nature of offences is heinous Page No.# 3/3 and brutal in nature. 7. I have also perused the statements of some of the witnesses including the portions flagged by the prosecution. The statements of two witnesses have already recorded before the learned JMFC. Needless to say that the petitioner is also named in the FIR and there are direct allegations against the FIR named accused persons. 8. Considering the nature of the alleged offence, the materials found so in the investigation and the contentions of the investigating officer – I am of the considered view that it may not be not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail and that the investigating officer has rightly contended that anticipatory bail may adversely impact the effectiveness of the investigation. 9. Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail stands rejected at this stage and the petition disposed of accordingly. 10. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant