Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010131872026 2026:GAU-AS:10133 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1422/2026 INAMUL HOQUE AND 3 ORS. S/O- SOLIM UDDIN AHMED 2: ANOWAR HUSSAIN S/0- SOLIM UDDIN AHMED 3: ABDUL BATEN S/O- MUJAFAR ALI 4: MONOWAR HUSSAIN S/O SOLIM UDDIN AHMED. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF-VILLAGE KAREA PART-1 P.S- JOGIGHOPA DIST-BONGAIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K AZAD, A M RAHMAN,MR. I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 23.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. K. Azad for the petitioners namely, (i) Inamul Hoque, (ii) Anowar Hussain, (iii) Abdul Baten, and (iv) Monowar Hussain who have filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with Jogighopa Police Station Case No. 80/2026 under Section 318(4)/85/115(2)/351(3)/308(4)/315 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State who has raised serious objection against the prayer of pre- arrest bail of the petitioner No.1 i.e. the husband of the victim. It is submitted that there are incriminating materials in the Case Dairy implicating the petitioner No.1. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that a false case has been brought up against the petitioners. The victim is not from an affluent family to pay Rs. 10 lacs as dowry. It is submitted that the victim was earlier married twice and as the petitioner No. 1 and the victim got involved in a love affair, and an agreement was indeed executed. It is submitted that the victim, suspecting the petitioner would desert her got the agreement executed. 4. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed, there are incriminating materials directly implicating the petitioner No.1. However, I have considered the progress of investigation. It appears that custodial interrogation may not be required. 5. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, all the petitioners are granted Page No.# 3/3 pre-arrest bail. The interim order dated 25.06.2026 so far as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, is made absolute whereas the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 are granted pre arrest bail . 6. Accordingly, in the event of arrest of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 named above, they shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- each with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 7. All the petitioners are directed to abide by the conditions imposed vide interim order dated 25.06.2026. 8. In terms of the above observations, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of. 9. Send back the Case Dairy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant