Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010014292026 2026:GAU-AS:2248 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/208/2026 ASRAFUL HOQUE ALIAS ASRAFUL MIAH AND 3 ORS. S/O THANDU MIAH R/O VILL- BHUGARANDA, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM 2: FULCHAN ALI @ FULCHAN MIAH S/O THANDU MIAH R/O VILL- BHUGARANDA P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 3: LALCHAN ALI @ LALCHAN MIAH S/O THANDU MIAH R/O VILL- BHUGARANDA P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 4: THANDU MIAH S/O LATE BILAT ALI R/O VILL- BHUGARANDA P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A B KHABIR, MR S HUSSAIN,MR. A S ALI Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 16-02-2026 Heard Mr. S A B Khabir, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 356/2025 u/s 140(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 corresponding with G.R. Case No. 1155/2025. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Khabir that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that as per the FIR itself it is seen that initially the accused/petitioner nos. 1 & 4 were detained in the police station when the informant visited to the police station after lodging an FIR before District Superintendent of Police. It is also stated in the FIR itself that the accused/persons confessed that they had kidnapped the victim. But, surprisingly even after their confession, the police did not take any steps for recovery of the missing boy. Rather, the accused/persons were allowed to go home without even registering a case. Further, he submitted that the accused/petitioner Asraful was kept in the police station for about 9 Page No.# 3/4 days and accused no. 4 was kept in custody of police for 5 days without even registering a case, which also violates the mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Khabir however submitted that they will cooperate the I/O in further investigation of this case if all the accused/petitioners are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. They being the local persons will provide sufficient surety before Investigating Officer. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised vehement objection and submitted that sufficient materials have already been collected by the I/O against the present petitioners and from the note of the I/O it is seen that the boy was missing since 08.06.2025 and he was last seen with accused no. 1 Asraful, who took him for a walk and since then got missing. More surprisingly, thereafter the SIM Card of the missing boy was found to be inserted in the mobile handset of accused/petitioner no. 4, which was tracked by the I/O and track detailed is also available in the Case Diary. Mr. Sharma further submitted that till date there is no recovery of the missing boy and case is still under investigation. Accordingly, he submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners at this stage. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and the note of the I/O made available in the Case Diary. It is a fact that since the day of missing i.e. on 08.06.2025, the victim boy could not be recovered and till date more so after tracking the mobile handset it was found that the SIM Card of the mobile of the victim was inserted in the mobile handset of accused no. 4 who is father of the petitioner no. 1, with whom he was last seen together. So considering these aspects of this case, the allegation brought against the present petitioners which is very serious in nature Page No.# 4/4 and that apart the victim could not be recovered till date, I find that custodial interrogation will be necessary to unearth some facts of the case, vis-à-vis may also help in the recovery of the victim boy. 7. With the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners and accordingly the same stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant