Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010209502025 2025:GAU-AS:12872 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2291/2025 ROFIQUL ISLAM AND 4 ORS. S/O- HUSSAIN ALI, R/O - VILL. BARUKATI, P.O. AND P.S. - BHURAGAON DIST. - MORIGAON, ASSAM PIN CODE - 782121 2: ZIARUL HOQUE ALIAS JIARUL HOQUE S/O - RAHMAN ALI ALIAS ABDUL ALI R/O - FALIHAMARI PATHAR BHURAGAON P.O. AND P.S. - BHURAGAON DIST. - MORIGAON ASSAM PIN CODE- 782121 3: ILIAS UDDIN ELIUS HUSSAIN SON OF ABDUL AZIZ R/O ADHALABHETI BHURAGON P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN -782121 4: ROFIQUL ISLAM S/O - ISRAFIL ALI ALIAS ISHRAFIL ALI R/O BHURAGAON KUPATIMARI P.O. AND P.S. BHURAGAON DIST. - MORIGAON ASSAM PIN CODE - 782121 5: FOIJUL HAQUE ALIAS FAIJUL HAQUE Page No.# 2/4 S/O - ABDUL REJAK R/O- R/O KUPATIMARI BHURAGAON P.O. AND P.S. - BHURAGAON DIST. - MORIGAON ASSAM PIN CODE 78212 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MR S H MAHMUD,MS. B CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 18.09.2025 Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also earned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, (i) Rofiqul Islam (ii) Ziarul Hoque @ Jiarul Hoque (iii) Ilias Uddin @ Elius Hussain (iv) Rofiqul Islam (v) Foijul Hauqe @ Faijul Haque, have 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 Page No.# 3/4 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 petitioners. He has raised objection against the prayer of the petitioners. 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 of the accused petitioners. 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 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 petitioners Page No.# 4/4 are 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 contention of the investigating officer – I am of the considered view that it may not be 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