Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26612 (GAU)

MAKIBUL ALI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2298/2025 · 2025-11-09

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010209752025 2025:GAU-AS:15137 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2298/2025 MAKIBUL ALI SON OF ISLAM UDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEWRIKUCHI, P.S. BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K BHUYAN, MR. Z MAHMUD,MR M HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 10.11.2025 Heard Mr. K Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D P Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. CD, as called for, has not been received. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking to grant pre- Page No.# 2/3 arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Barpeta P.S.CaseNo.299/2025U/S189(2)/191(3)/74/117(2)/109/196/115(2) /299. 4. As per the allegation, on 14.08.2025, the informant had parked his motorcycle at the market place and in the meantime, the accused along with some other persons are attacked him and his mother, tore the wearing dress of his mother and physically assaulted both of them. 5. My attention has been drawn to the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Crl. Misc. Bail No. 136/2025, whereby bail was granted to the co-accused Amir Hamza. 6. On perusal of the said order, it appears that upon perusal of the injury report, the learned Court of Sessions Judge recorded that the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt object. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the present petitioner was simply stand at the place which is located about 25 meters away from his shop. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts as well as the nature of the injuries, as reflected in the aforesaid order, a prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. 9. The accused abovenamed shall be released on pre-arrest bail of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority in connection with the aforesaid case. It is further provided that the petitioner shall appear before the I.O within a period of 7 days from today for the purpose of recording of his statement. It is also provided that the petitioner Page No.# 3/3 shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not try to intimidate or influence witnesses. 10. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant