Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010244802025 2026:GAU-AS:10156 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2624/2025 ALFAZ HUSSAIN AND 6 ORS. SON OF ABDUL RASHJID R/O NEAR LIC OFFICE, WARD NO. 3, P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001. 2: ARMAN ALI SON OF KURBAN ALI RESIDENT OF 5-5(1) KACHARIGAON BSNL ROAD TRIBENI CINEMA HALL P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001. 3: KURBAN ALI S/O HAJI GURAMIA R/O 5-5(1) KACHARIGAON BSNL ROAD TRIBENI CINEMA HALL P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 4: MAMINA BEGUM @ SHERI KHATUN W/O ABDUL RASHID R/O 5-5(1) KACHARIGAON Page No.# 2/4 BSNL ROAD TRIBENI CINEMA HALL P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 5: JAMILA KHATUN W/O LATE TOKIR AHMED KHAN RESIDENT OF KACHARIGAON P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001. 6: NECHIMA KHATUN @ NISIMA KHATUN D/O LATE ABDUL RASHID RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 3 P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001. 7: FARIDA BEGUM @ MUSSTT. BEGUM D/O ASHRAF ALI RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 4 MOJID ROAD P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 24-07-20 26 Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Alfaz Hussain, (2) Arman Ali, (3) Kurban Ali, (4), Mamina Begum @ Sheri Khatun, (5) Jamila Khatun, (6) Nechima Khatun @ Nisima Khatun and (7) Farida Begum @ Musstt. Begum who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Tezpur P. S. Case No. 709/2025 under Sections 61(2)/326(g)/351(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The allegations as reflected in the FIR, inter alia, are that on 22.10.2025 at around 02:10 a.m. the complainant’s shop was deliberately burned down by the present petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3. 4. Case diary as called for has been received. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on plain a reading of the FIR itself, it would be apparent that nobody actually saw the petitioners committing the act of arson. It is further submitted that the petitioners’ own house is located adjacent to the premises rented out to the complainant and therefore, the petitioners can hardly be expected to set the adjacent house on fire as it would affect their own house as well. 6. On perusal of the case diary, it is seen that there are no eye witnesses who have implicated the petitioners, although the informants have stated that Page No.# 4/4 the petitioners have burned down the house, as the same was not vacated by the informants. 7. Pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court to the petitioners by order dated 06.11.2025, the petitioners had appeared before the I.O. and their statements have been recorded. 8. Having regard to the above, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 06.11.2025 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions. 10. With the above observations, this pre-arrest bail application is disposed of. 11. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant