Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010004712025 2025:GAU-AS:525 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/82/2025 HANIF ALI AND 5 ORS S/O- AHED ALI, RESIDENT VILL. BORBILA PART-I, P.O. HOWRARPAR, P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783324 2: HUSEN ALI S/O- AHED ALI RESIDENT VILL. BORBILA PART-I P.O. HOWRARPAR P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783324 3: SAMSUL HOQUE S/O- LT. OLIULLAH RESIDENT VILL. BORBILA PART-I P.O. HOWRARPAR P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783324 4: JARINA BIBI W/O- SAMSUL HOQUE RESIDENT VILL. BORBILA PART-I P.O. HOWRARPAR P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783324 5: SIDDIK ALI S/O- SAMSUL HOQUE RESIDENT VILL. BORBILA PART-I P.O. HOWRARPAR P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 PIN- 783324 6: AHED ALI S/O- LT. APOU UDDIN RESIDENT VILL. BORBILA PART-I P.O. HOWRARPAR P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78332 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 20.01.2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 395/2024, under Sections 189(3)/329(3)/324(2)/118(2)/74 of BNS and added Section 103 BNS. Page No.# 3/5 3. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, that there was a land dispute between the family members of the parties and the dispute arose when the land was sold to one Ahed Ali, F.I.R. named accused No. 9, by the F.I.R. named accused No. 4- Samsul Hoque, the brother of the deceased. Though it is alleged that on the day of incident, there was an altercation took place between the 2 (two) groups for the land dispute between the parties, but the present petitioners are not at all involved in the alleged offence and the deceased also died in hospital after 1 (one) month of the said incident. However, all the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case and will extend their co-operation if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners and the wife of the deceased named all the petitioners showing their involvement in the alleged offence. More so, the I.O. has also objected the bail by submitting separate bail objection. He further submitted that there may be probability of tampering or hampering with the investigation of the case if the present petitioners are granted with the bail. 6. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted in this regard that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, i.e. the accused Nos. 11 & 10, respectively, are the neighbors and similarly the petitioner No. 4 is also a neighbor and they are not Page No.# 4/5 at all involved in the alleged offence. However, it is a fact that the petitioner No. 3- Samsul Hoque had sold the land to the petitioner No. 6- Ahed Ali and the petitioner No. 5 is also a neighbor and they are not at all involved in the alleged offence. 7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation. It is seen that all the witnesses have named the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 13, who specifically took part in assaulting and hitting the deceased and for which, he sustained serious injury on his head and subsequently died in hospital during treatment. Accordingly, considering the materials available in the Case Diary, the prayer for anticipatory bail in respect of the petitioner No. 3- Samsul Hoque & petitioner No. 5- Siddik Ali stands rejected. 8. However, in respect of the rest of the petitioners, I find that their custodial interrogation in connection with this case is not necessary and therefore, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6. 9. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Hanif Ali, (ii) Husen Ali, (iii) Jarina Bibi & (iv) Ahed Ali, in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 395/2024, under Sections 189(3)/329(3)/324(2)/118(2)/74 of BNS and added Section 103 BNS, they shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on their executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the Page No.# 5/5 satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; and (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 10. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in terms above. 11. The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant