Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2274 (GAU)

INAMUL ALI AHMED AND 3 ORS. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/288/2026 · 2026-03-12

Mitali Thakuria

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010024472026 2026:GAU-AS:3676 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/288/2026 INAMUL ALI AHMED AND 3 ORS. SON OF ISMAIL ALI ALIAS ISMAIL ALI AHMED 2: ISMAIL ALIALIAS ISMAIL ALI AHMED SON OF LATE ISRAFIL ALI 3: MABIYA BEGUM ALIAS NAZIA BEGUM WIFE OF ISMAIL ALI 4: KHTAR ALI ALIAS AKHTAR SK ALL ARE RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 2 MANGALDOI TOWN P.O. P.S. MANGALDOI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 78243 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M HASSAN, MR. N K HALOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 13-03-2026 Heard Mr. N. K. Haloi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Inamul Ali Ahmed, (ii) Ismail Ali @ Ismail Ali Ahmed, (iii) Mabiya Begum @ Nazia Begum, and (iv) Akhtar Ali @ Akhtar Sk, in connection with Mangaldai P.S Case No.22/2026 corresponding to G.R. No. 89/2026 under Sections 109(1)/115(2)/296/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. The injury report is also received from the I.O. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Haloi, learned counsel that there is no such incident had occurred as stated in the FIR. However, it is a fact that there was a quarrel took place between the victim and the petitioner No.1, who is the husband of the victim and that apart, no other incident took place. However, after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 appeared before the I.O. and cooperated in the investigation of the case. 5. However, all the petitioners are still ready and willing to extend their cooperation in the further investigation of the case, if they are provided with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 3/4 6. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP submitted in this regard that from the statements made by the witnesses in the case diary it is seen that the quarrel took place between the husband and wife out of some matrimonial dispute and the victim also sustained some minor injury i.e., tenderness on her chest. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, materials available in the case diary and also considering the injury sustained by the victim and other aspects of the case, I find that it is a fit case, wherein all the petitioners may be extended with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 8. In view of above, the interim bail granted to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 12.02.2026 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and condition. 9. The petitioner Nos. (i) and (iv) is also granted with the privilege of pre- arrest bail. 10. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioners Nos. (i) and (iv), namely, Inamul Ali Ahmed and Akhtar Ali @ Akhtar Sk in connection with Mangaldai P.S Case No.22/2026 corresponding to G.R. No. 89/2026 under Sections 109(1)/115(2)/296/3(5) of BNS, 2023, they shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on their executing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each only, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner Nos. (i) and (iv) shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of 1(one) week from today to enable recording of their statements; (ii) that the petitioner Nos. (i) and (iv) shall fully co- Page No.# 4/4 operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case and (iii) that the petitioner Nos. (i) and (iv) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 11. This pre-arrest bail application accordingly stands disposed of. 12. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant