Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010280542025 2026:GAU-AS:163 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3018/2025 EDRISH ALI AND ORS S/O- LATE SIDDIK ALI. R/O- VILL- NO.2 BHELENGIMARI, P.O.- BHAGNAMARI, P.S.- BHAGNAMARI, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781317. 2: MAMUD ALI S/O- EDRISH ALI. R/O- VILL- NO.2 BHELENGIMARI P.O.- BHAGNAMARI P.S.- BHAGNAMARI DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781317. 3: HAMED ALI S/O- EDRISH ALI. R/O- VILL- NO.2 BHELENGIMARI P.O.- BHAGNAMARI P.S.- BHAGNAMARI DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781317 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A MANNAF, G. RABHA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 06.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Edrish Ali (2) Mamud Ali and (3) Hamed Ali, apprehending arrest in connection with Bhagnamari P.S. Case No. 18/2024 registered u/s 61(2)/108 of BNS. 3. Drawing attention to order dated 04.08.2025 passed in AB 1537/2025 granting pre arrest bail to two co-accused and the learned counsel for the present petitioners also seeking bail on the aspect of parity. 4. Case diary has been received along with a bail objection. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor objecting to the grant of bail submits that in the meantime, the FSL report has also come giving positive test for poison in the nature of oregano phosphorus insecticide. 6. In the bail objection it is stated by the IO that the deceased was mentally harassed by the accused persons with a threat of cases and demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and eventually consumed poison on 17.12-2024 7. The harassment of the deceased/victim also emerges from the materials in the case diary. Statements of three witnesses are recorded before learned JMFC are also available. The witnesses have also stated Page No.# 3/3 about the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the significant incriminating materials revealed by investigation, subsequently, the aspect of parity will not come. 9. I have given my consideration with the materials and also to the aspect of parity. Considering the materials and the circumstances, I unable to find sufficient justification for anticipatory bail, at this stage. 10. Accordingly the pre-arrest bail application stands rejected and disposed of at this stage. 11. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant