Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010197902026 2026:GAU-AS:13755 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2224/2026 MOTIBUR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS SON OF ISLAM ALI 2: MAINUDDIN AHMED SON OF CHAHED ALI 3: RAFIQUL ISLAM SON OF BAHARUL ISLAM ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BHOLAGAON POLICE STATION- PALASHBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K BARMAN, MR. R KONWAR,MD N ABED,MR H ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 16-09-2026 Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre arrest bail in connection with Palashbari P.S. Case No. 200/2026 registered under Sections 308(4)/308(6)/351(2)/232(1) as well as 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners are apprehending arrest was lodged on 01.09.2026 by Tahidur Rahman stating inter alia that he had invested his hard earn money in Rani Bholagaon Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittee Limited and that on maturity of the said invested amount, he was not paid back his money and that the accused persons including the petitioner no.2 had not paid him. It is also stated that the petitioners have threatened him with serious consequences if he remains a witness in the earlier Palashbari PS Case No. 171/2026. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner no.2 in the said FIR and the FIR reveals a concocted story. He further submits that in respect of petitioner nos.1 and 3, the police have reached their place of residence in search of them with the purpose to arrest in connection with the instant case. He submits that the said petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the offence i.e. narrated in the FIR. 4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that it is in the statement of the informant as well as other witnesses that the petitioner no.2 and others have threatened Page No.# 3/3 the informant as stated in the FIR. 5. Upon considerations of the submissions made by the learned Counsels, and the case diary reveals that no specific allegations were made against the petitioners neither in the statements of the witnesses. As such, the petitioners are directed to be released on pre arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority, under the following conditions: i) the petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days. ii) the petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. iii) the petitioners will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iv) the petitioners will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant