Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15390 (GAU)

MUJIBUL ISLAM AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2157/2026 · 2026-09-27

Shamima Jahan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010192872026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2157/2026 MUJIBUL ISLAM AND ANR SON OF LATE IBRAHIM, 2: MASUD AHMED SON OF MUJIBUL ISLAM RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MATIKHOLA P.S.- MURAJHAR DISTRICT - HOJAI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 28.09.2026 Heard Mr. JC Gogoi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. KK Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Murajhar PS Case No. 128/2026 registered under Sections 127(2)/118(2)/109(1)/49 of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners are apprehending arrest was lodged by the victim stating inter alia that on 02.07.2026 at about 11:30 pm, when he saw some people with torch light near the transformer, he went ahead and he saw that the persons were trying to connect the transformer which was left disconnected by the department. It was also stated that when the informant intervened on the direction of petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2 attacked him with a machete, which have resulted in injuries on the head of the informant. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was argument amongst the neighbors but the allegations made against the petitioners are concocted. 4. On the other hand, Mr. KK Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on perusal of the Case Diary submits that as per the injury on the head of the father of the informant is concerned, the same is simple but there are statement of witnesses wherein it was stated that petitioner no.2 had attacked the informant and others under the instigation of petitioner no.1. 5. Upon considerations of the submissions made by the learned Counsels, more so in view of the fact that the petitioners and the informant are neighbors and that injuries were also found to be simple, this Court enlarges the petitioners on pre arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one local surety each 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 from the date of the order. Page No.# 3/3 ii) the petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when called for. ii) the petitioners will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) the petitioners will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant