Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24605 (GAU)

MOHUBOR RAHMAN @ MOHOBOR ALI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2474/2025 · 2025-12-15

Pranjal Das

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010228652025 2025:GAU-AS:17423 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2474/2025 MOHUBOR RAHMAN @ MOHOBOR ALI S/O- SAHAJAMAL SHEIKH, VILL- KOKRADANGA, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA, DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16.12.2025 Heard Mr. A.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 petitioner, namely, Mohubor Rohman @ Page No.# 2/3 Mohobor Ali, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with South Salmara P.S. Case No. 103/2025 under Section 189(3)/132/121(2)/109 of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegation in the FIR is that members of a crowd tried to attack the informant who is police personnel and assaulted him and deterred the police party from discharging government duty. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge of the jurisdictional district in which the there is an observation that at that time there was no progress of investigation since 04.09.2025; that, the injury report of Baharul Islam reveals that some pain and abdomen, tiredness and swelling in multiple site of body including head, but no report has been submitted; the statement of witness recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, reveals that there is no material to indicate that the accused person tried to kill the victim or that injury sustained by the victim was grievous. 5. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail vide order dated 17.10.2025. Pursuant to which, he stated to have appeared and statement recorded. However, case diary is received but statement of the accused is not available in the case diary. 6. Upon the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to the medical report, I find that the same co-relates with observation of the learned Sessions Judge, as indicated above. 7. In the given facts and circumstances, I deem it fit to confirm the interim bail. Accordingly, the interim protection vide dated 17.10.2025 is Page No.# 3/3 hereby made absolute subject to the conditions – that the petitioner shall be available for trial, if one commences; that the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; and that the petitioner shall not intimidate or harass or try to influence any witnesses. 8. Violation or breach of condition(s) shall entail cancellation of the bail. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant