Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010252452025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2712/2025 KOSIMUDDIN SHEIKH S/O- KOLIMUDDIN SHEIKH. R/O- VILL- ASHUDUBI, P.S- KISHNAI, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN -782125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS, MR. D K AGARWALA,TAWHID LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 17.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Kosimuddin Sheikh, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Krishnai P.S. Case No. 40/2025, registered under Section Page No.# 2/3 190/191(2)(3)/189(2)/329(3)/126(1)(2) / 132/121(2)/109/324(5)(6)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 3 PDPP Act R/W Section 24 of the Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891. 3. This is a subsequent bail application on as the earlier bail petition was rejected on 24.10.2025 by this Court in AB No. 2429/2025. 4. The FIR dated 18.07.2025 alleged that on 17.07.2025 in the morning, a team of police and forest officials lead by the informant were engaged in disconnecting road near the place of occurrence and during this operation, mob of 400/500 persons entered the area unlawfully and attacked the police and forest officials with weapons, as a result of which 11 forest personnel and 9 police personnel were injured. It is also alleged that the incident created a volatile law and order situation. Several persons from the mob were also injured, the names of whom have been mentioned in the FIR and it also included the present petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the petitioner has been recorded and due to bullet injury, he took treatment from a hospital and also a photograph has placed before this Court. It is also submitted that investigation has sufficiently progressed and the subsequent bail petition may be accepted. 6. Case diary was again called for and received. 7. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the police had searched the petitioner in his house but could not found. However, there is no much investigation after the rejection order. 8. Though, investigation is not yet completed but the case diary indicates reasonably good progress. Considering the progress of Page No.# 3/3 investigation and regarding the fact of his recovering from a bullet injury - I am of the view that perhaps allowing the subsequent bail petition, may not prejudice the remaining investigation in any significant manner. 9. Therefore in such view of the matter, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, named above, in connection with above mentioned case, they shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- each with a suitable surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. The direction for pre-arrest bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioners: (a) Shall render co-operation to the remaining investigation; (b) Shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence of the case. (c) Shall not misuse his liberty to commit any illegal activity or offence and if requires he make himself available for examination before the IO. 10. Violation of any of the bail condition shall entail cancellation of bail. 11. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of. 12. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant