Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010267412025 2026:GAU-AS:61 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2836/2025 ELIAS ALI SON OF SOMINUDDIN, VILLAGE NAGAJAN, BAHBARI, KHARUPETIA, DARRANG, ASSAM 784115 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MD. ANARUL ISLAM,MR S H MAHMUD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 05.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. U. Mamud for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 2. By this petition under Section 482 BNSS, the accused-petitioner, namely Elias Ali, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Kharupetia PS Case No. 126/2025 under Sections 103(1)/3(5) BNS, 2023. 3. The allegation against the present petitioner, briefly stated, is that the deceased Majibar Rahman @ Kalu had met the present petitioner to purchase drugs but due to shortage of money, the accused snatched away the mobile phone of the petitioner. The aforesaid facts were reported by the deceased to the daughter of the informant over phone and at that time, the accused was present with the deceased but the call got disconnected and the deceased did not return home. Later on, the dead body of the deceased was found on 10.10.2025 at Nimtoli River, which is near the house of the accused. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been named in the FIR only due to suspicion and that the petitioner only knew the deceased but did not have any other connection with him. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per the post- mortem report the deceased sustained multiple injuries and there is also material against the petitioner in the case diary. In the bail objection submitted by the I.O. it is stated that the present petitioner is the main culprit and that he is also a drug smuggler. Page No.# 3/3 6. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, it appears that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary. 7. Consequently, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected at this stage. 8. Send back the case diary. 9. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant