Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010212292025 2025:GAU-AS:13701 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3079/2025 BOROBABA ALIAS ASRAF HUSSAIN AND ANR S/O LT. MOKSED ALI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADHUSOULMARI PART II, PO MADHUSOULMARI, POLICE STATION GAURIPUR, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783331 2: MOSTAK HUSSAIN ALIAS MANDU S/O LT. MOKSED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADHUSOULMARI PART II PO MADHUSOULMARI POLICE STATION GAURIPUR DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78333 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J ABBAS, SK ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 14.10.2025 Heard Mr. I U Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused applicants. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the accused applicants, namely, (i) Borobaba @ Asraf Hussain and (ii) Mostak Hussain @ Mandu, who were arrested on 26.07.2025 in connection with Gauripur Police Station Case No. 234/2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/103(1) of BNS, 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 799/2025. 3. The gist of the case as has been narrated in the FIR are that one Lutfa Bibi, wife of the deceased Moniruz Zaman Sheikh lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Gauripur Police Station alleging that on 21.05.2025 at around 8 PM the accused persons named in the FIR have killed her husband in her house using various weapons, such as Tarowal, Deggar etc. 4. After receipt of the FIR, the police registered the case on 22.05.2025 as Gauripur Police Station Case No. 234/2025 under Sections 61(2)/103(1) of BNS, 2023. 5. During the investigation, the investigating authority arrested the applicants on 26.07.2025 and since then they are in judicial custody. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused applicants submits that the accused applicants are no way connected with the instant case and they are even not named in the FIR. He submits that they are already inside the jail for the last 80 days and their custodial interrogation may not be required at this stage and therefore, he Page No.# 3/3 submits that they should be allowed to go on bail with any conditions deemed fit by this Court. 7. Whereas, learned APP, Assam appearing for the State submits that there are various incriminating materials available in the case diary implicating the accused petitioners and therefore, at this stage, the accused applicants may not be granted bail by this Court. 8. This Court has gone through the case diary which has been submitted before this Court by the learned APP, Assam and has found that there are certain statements which have been recorded by the investigating authorities, which reveal, prima facie, the involvement of the accused applicants in the commission of the offence so alleged in the FIR. 9. Looking into the materials in it’s proper perspective, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused applicants at this stage. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings, this bail application of the accused applicants is rejected. 11. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. 12. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant