Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010213792025 2025:GAU-AS:17710 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2352/2025 MD. SOHIDUR ISLAM S/O- MD HARUN RASID, VILLAGE- LUNGJHAR, P.S.-MANIKPUR, DIST.-BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, R KHA,MS. P AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 19-12-2025 Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Md. Sohidur Islam in connection with Howly P.S. Case No. 79/2025 under Sections 319(2)/304(2)/336(3)/3(5) of BNS. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuant to order dated 13.11.2025 the petitioner had already appeared before the I/O and his statement is recorded and thus he is also cooperating in the investigation of this case. However, he is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation with the I/O in further investigation of the case, if his interim bail is hereby made absolute. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the Case Diary reveals sufficient incriminating materials against him on the basis of which his earlier bail application was rejected. However, after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail he appeared before the I/O and cooperating in the investigation. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary which reveals that the accused/petitioner appeared before the I/O and his statement is recorded. Further, there is no note from the I/O that whether his custodial interrogation will be required. Considering these aspects of the case, I find that custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the present case and accordingly I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. Hence, the order of interim bail dated 13.11.2025 is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions. Page No.# 3/3 7. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant