Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8946 (GAU)

SOFIQUL ISLAM MIR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

AB/568/2025 · 2025-05-04

Mitali Thakuria

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010050192025 2025:GAU-AS:5534 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/568/2025 SOFIQUL ISLAM MIR S/O MD. MANNAS ALI R/O POLAHJURI P.S. MOIRABARI DIST.MORIGAON, ASSAM 2: MD. ASADUL HAQUE S/OMD. ABDUL KHALEQUE R/O POLAHJURI P.S. MOIRABARI DIST.MORIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SABIKUN NEHAR W/O MD. MOFIJUL HOQUE R/O POLAHJURI P.S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED, I AMIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE,(R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 05.05.2025 Heard Mr. I. Amin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in connection with Moirabari P. S. Case No. 27/2025, registered under Sections 329(4)/64/351(3) of BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act [arising out of CR Case No. 42/2025]. 3. The Case Diary has been received, and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Amin, learned counsel for the petitioners, that false and concocted allegations have been brought against the present petitioners solely due to a grudge and an ongoing land dispute between the parties. This fact is also evident from the First Information Report (FIR), which discloses the existence of a land dispute between the parties. He further submits that, in connection with the said land dispute, two or three civil matters are still pending before the learned Trial Court. He also submits that, on the day of the incident, the informant’s side arrived at the disputed land claiming to construct a house, leading to a chaotic situation. Subsequently, the informant’s husband allegedly assaulted the wife of petitioner No.1, causing her severe injuries. However, the present FIR has been lodged with false and concocted allegations, only as a counterblast to that incident. He further submits that the petitioners are ready Page No.# 3/4 and willing to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation if granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused/petitioners, as reflected in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. Apart from the victim’s statement, other witnesses have also supported the prosecution's case. He further submits that, according to the note of the IO, the accused/petitioners are already absconding. Therefore, he raises objections to the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that this is not a fit case for such relief at this stage, particularly in view of the high probability of the accused/petitioners hampering or tampering with the investigation if released. 6. Mr. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2, submits that while there may be a land dispute between the parties, the present petitioners may have committed the alleged offence in connection with the said dispute. Thus, based on the contents of the FIR, he submits that this is not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners at this stage. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, and upon perusal of the materials available in the case diary particularly the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS as well as the conduct of the accused/petitioners, including the fact that they allegedly threatened the victim (as noted by the IO), I do not find this to be a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 8. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 9. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant