Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010275432024 2025:GAU-AS:3 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3407/2024 AKHIRUL ISLAM S/O, SHAHER ALI, R/O. VILLAGE- PIPULBARI PART-III, P.O- MANULLAPARA, DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN - 783135 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY LEARNED P.P, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS A KHATUN, MD I H LASKAR,MR. M AHMED,MR. M ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 03.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. The petitioner, namely, Akhirul Islam, has approached this Court for the second time praying for grant of pre arrest bail who is apprehending arrest in connection with Mankachar P.S. Case No. 14/2024 under Sections Page No.# 2/2 148/448/387/363/511 of the IPC (i.e. under sections 191/329/308/137/62 of the BNS) corresponding to GR Case No. 29/2024. 3. This Court after perusal of the case diary rejected such prayer of the petitioner for grant of pre arrest bail under its order dated 27.05.2024 passed in AB/1275/2024, after finding that sufficient incriminating materials are available against the petitioner in the case diary. 4. Under its order dated 20.12.2024, this Court had again called for the case dairy. Accordingly, the case diary has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor today. 5. This Court has once again gone through the case diary. The materials so far collected are suggestive of the fact that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary inasmuch as such material suggests presence of the petitioner in the place of occurrence and his involvement in commission of the offence. 6. This Court has also considered the stage of investigation, which also suggests that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary. 7. Yet another aspect of the matter is that this Court has not found any new grounds, which were not available when the bail was rejected by this Court under its order dated 27.05.2024 passed in AB/1275/2024. 8. That being the position, the prayer of bail for the petitioner stand rejected. However, while parting with the record, it is made clear that the observations made in this order is for the purpose of consideration of the prayer of bail only and same should not be treated as affirmation of merit of the prosecution case. 9. With the aforesaid determination and observations, this bail application stands dismissed. 10. Case diary be returned back to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. JUDGE Comparing Assistant