Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010080042026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/851/2026 RAHAM ALI AND 5 ORS. S/O LT KARIM MIAH, R/O VILL TUMNI LAWKHOWA, PO TUMNI, PS SOUTH SALMARA, DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783127 2: SHOHIDUL ISLAM S/O RAHAM ALI R/O VILL TUMNI LAWKHOWA PO TUMNI PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783127 3: MOMINUR ISLAM S/O RAHAM ALI R/O VILL TUMNI LAWKHOWA PO TUMNI PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783127 4: AMINUR ISLAM S/O RAHAM ALI R/O VILL TUMNI LAWKHOWA PO TUMNI PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783127 5: RAMESA BIBI W/O RAHAM ALI R/O VILL TUMNI LAWKHOWA Page No.# 2/5 PO TUMNI PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783127 6: AYZAL HOQUE @ AFZAL HOQUE R/O VILL TUMNI LAWKHOWA PO TUMNI PS SOUTH SALMARA DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 78312 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MR A ALIM SK,MR K ISLAM,MR. A W MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 06.08.2026 Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, by the applicants, namely, 1. Raham Ali, 2. Shohidul Islam, 3. Mominur Islam, 4. Aminur Islam, 5. Ramesa Bibi, 6. Ayzal Hoque @ Afzal Hoque, praying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with South Salmara P.S. Case No. 20/2026, registered under Sections Page No.# 3/5 61 (2)/103(1)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 10.02.2023, the informant lodged an F.I.R. before the jurisdictional Police Station alleging that his maternal aunt had married the accused/husband Rojidul Islam @ Shahidul Islam about 11 years earlier. It is alleged that, after the marriage, they initially led a peaceful conjugal life for several years and were blessed with three children. However, for the last three years, the accused/husband along with his family members, had allegedly been demanding money and a motorbike as dowry and had subjected the victim to physical assault on several occasions. 4. It is further alleged that on 05.02.2026 at about 12.30 AM, the accused persons tied the deceased to a wooden chair, assaulted her with the intention of causing her death, and forcibly administered poison to her. On the basis of the said allegations, a case was registered. 5. Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the present applicants are family members of the accused/husband and that, solely on the allegation that they, along with the accused/husband, had demanded dowry from the deceased, the instant case has been registered against them, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of arrest. He further submits that the applicants have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence and that have been falsely implicated merely on account of their relationship with the accused/husband. 6. Per Contra, Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Page No.# 4/5 State respondent, submits that a perusal of the case diary reveals that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation do not implicate the present applicants in the commission of the alleged offence. He further submits that the FSL report is yet to be received and the statement of the witnesses have already been recorded by the Investigating Officer. 7. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the diary as called for being placed before this Court. 8. It appears that the statements of the witnesses have already been recorded by the Investigating Officer. It further appears that the evidence of the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded, does not implicate the present applicants in the commission of the offences alleged in the F.I.R. There are no adverse criminal antecedents against the applicants, and nothing adverse has, at this stage, emerged against the present applicants. 9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with the above noted case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:- Page No.# 5/5 i) That the applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days, failing which on and from the 11th day, the pre- arrest bail order shall have no force; ii) That the applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. iii) The applicants shall not tamper with, destroy, or alter any evidence related to this case. iv) That the applicants shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission. 10. Resultantly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant