Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010208272025 2025:GAU-AS:13309 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2253/2025 MUFAJJUL ISLAM SON OF HURMUJ ALI, PERMANENT R/O VILLAGE BANIAPARA, P.S. JURIA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILL- BORBHETI, P.S. NAGOAN SADAR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR D BARMAN,MS. M ROY,MR TAPOBRAT CHHETRI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 25.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is for the second time, the petitioner, namely, Mufajjul Islam, is approaching this Court and praying for anticipatory bail application. His earlier prayer was rejected by this Court on 25.07.2025 in A.B Case No.1246/2025 after perusal of the case diary and after finding sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 17.05.2025, one Amirul Hoque had lodged an FIR inter alia, alleging that on 30.05.2025, he was informed by the present petitioner, who is the Manager of the informant, that some dacoits entered in to the house of the informant at Borbheti and tied the legs and hands of Hibjur Ali @Hibjur Rahman and looted an amount of Rs. 11,56,000/- from there. 4. However, it is also alleged in the FIR that later on, the said Hibjur Ali @Hibjur Rahman informed that the whole incident was orchestrated by the present petitioner and he tied Hibjur Ali @Hibjur Rahman and took Rs. 11,56,000/- from their and gave it a colour of robbery. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Page No.# 3/4 the petitioner has approached this Court for the second time mainly on the ground that after rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, that two months have lapsed and therefore, the investigation might have been progressed and custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary. 6. He also submits that in the meanwhile, one of the co- accused, namely, Atiqur Rahman Foraji has already been granted bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has produced the case diary and has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that no new grounds has been shown by the petitioner for approaching this Court for the second time. He, further submits that the present petitioner is the main accused on whose behest entire drama of looting of Rs.11,56,000/- took place. 8. He submits that it is the present petitioner who took the amount and out of the looted money, he paid Rs. 1,89,000/- to co- accused Hibjur Ali @ Hibjur Rahman. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the case diary. 10. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that still there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner and around Rs.10,00,00/- of the looted amount is yet to be recovered. 11. On perusal of the second bail application filed by the petitioner, it appears that no fresh ground for approaching this Court Page No.# 4/4 has been made out by the petitioner while his earlier bail application was rejected after finding sufficient incriminating materials against him in the case diary, as the incriminating materials available in the case diary are still there. 12. The mere fact that sufficient amount of time has been lapsed after rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail application may not, by itself, be considered a new ground to entitle the petitioner to get the benefit of a favorable order under Section 482 of BNSS. 13. The prayer for anticipatory bail application is, therefore stands rejected. 14. Send back the case diary. 15. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant