Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010206302025 2025:GAU-AS:14109 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2317/2025 JIARUL HAQUE S/O- RAHMAN ALI, R/O- PHOLIHAMARI PATHAR, PS BHURAGAON, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BORUAH, MS. P BORAH,MR. M ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, J S AHMED (INFORMANT),MR. N HOQUE(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 23.10.2025 1. Heard Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Hoque, learned counsel for the informant. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Page No.# 2/3 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, 1. Jiarul Haque, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhuragaon P.S Case No. 49/2025, registered under Sections 61(2)/103(1)/118(2)/109 of BNS, 2023. 3. As 24 persons have named in the FIR dated 18.08.2025 including the present petitioner as accused no.15. 4. The gist of allegations pursuant to a land dispute, the accused persons in a pre-planned manner attacked the informant’s elder brother Saidul Islam and brutally killed him and in the incident, they have also caused serious injuries to another. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per her instructions after the incident, that the present petitioner without knowing about the same might have given a lift on his motorcycle to the accused no.1 on his request and that he was unaware that prior to that point of time, the accused no.1 might have been involved in the incident described in the FIR. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that apart from it being a brutal killing of the victim, the informant, in his statement recorded during the investigation, has reiterated the allegations against the present petitioner and has implicated him. As per the investigation, several persons are stated to have been involved in the incident out of whom 4/5 could be specifically identified. 7. Mr. N. Hoque, learned counsel for the informant objects to Page No.# 3/3 the bail and submits that the present petitioner is very much involved with the alleged incident. He also submits copies of orders passed in three other bail petitions of co-accused rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail. 8. The investigation is not yet completed. 9. In the given circumstances, this may not be an appropriate case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same stands rejected at this stage. 10. Return back the case diary. 11. Accordingly, this bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant