Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010152612026 2026:GAU-AS:12215 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1591/2026 NAJIRA KHATUN AND 3 ORS WIFE OF BARAKAT ALI MONDAL 2: ROFIQUL ISLAM ALIAS MINHAJUL SON OF BARAKAT ALI MONDAL BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-BARTARY P.S.-KALGACHIA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. 3: AKTAR HUSSAIN SON OF ABUL HOSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILL- SONTOSHPUR PART-II P.S.- MERERCHAR DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 4: A KADER SON OF LATE ABDUL AZIZ RESIDENT OF VILL- SONTOSHPUR PART-II P.S.- MERERCHAR DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ------------ Advocate for : MR. J AHMED Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 25.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP for the State of Assam and Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. By this application, the petitioners, namely, Najira Khatun, Rofiqul Islam @ Minhajul, Aktar Hussain and A. Kader seek the privilege of pre-arrest bail in connection with Kalgachia P.S. Case No. 55/2026, registered under Sections 103/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The First Information Report, in connection with, which the petitioners apprehend arrest was lodged by the wife of the deceased on 03.06.2026. The informant, inter alia, alleged that while her husband was returning from the market the accused persons had assembled at a particular place. When her husband reached the said spot accused No. 2, namely, Nujrul Islam allegedly struck him with a wooden baton, following which the other accused persons also assaulted him resulting in his death. 4. Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. He further submits that the only specific overt act alleged in the FIR is against Nujrul Islam who has Page No.# 3/5 already been arrested by the police. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor upon perusal of the case diary submits that petitioner No. 2 had at the first instance, assaulted the husband of the informant following which the other accused persons also assaulted the deceased, as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries. However, as regards petitioner No. 1, learned APP submits that she was enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail by order dated 20.07.2026 and pursuant thereto, she appeared before the Investigating Officer and her statement was recorded. 6. The learned APP further submits that the independent witnesses who had taken the deceased to the hospital stated that the deceased had disclosed to them that petitioner No. 2 had also assaulted him along with the other accused persons. Accordingly, learned APP opposes the grant of bail to petitioner No. 2. 7. Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel appearing for the informant, however, submits that it is evident from the FIR that all the petitioners had collectively assaulted the husband of the informant and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said assault. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. It is seen from the FIR that no specific overt act has been attributed to any of the petitioners, i.e. petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. As regards the allegation of sharing a common intention, the same is a matter to be considered at the stage of trial. It is further seen that the informant has not attributed any specific act or assault to the petitioners individually. Page No.# 4/5 10. Although, in the alleged oral dying declaration of the deceased, the name of Barkat Ali, along with his two sons was stated but the same was not mentioned in the FIR. It is also a settled position of law that merely on the basis of alleged oral dying declaration complicity cannot by itself be attributed to an accused particularly when the same is not corroborated by other materials on record. 11. In view of the foregoing findings, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one local surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the arresting authority within a period of 7 (seven) days from today and shall cooperate with the investigation; (ii) The petitioners will not influence the witnesses connected with the case; (iii) The petitioners will not hamper and temper the evidences collected in the case; (iv) The petitioners will not leave their places of residence without the permission of the arresting authority; (v) In the event the petitioners fail to comply with any of the conditions imposed herein, pre-arrest bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled. 12. Further the interim protection given to the Petitioner No.1 is made absolute, with the direction that she should comply with the conditions mentioned both in interim order as well as here. Page No.# 5/5 13. This Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant