Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010050302026 2026:GAU-AS:5187 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/618/2026 MAIN UDDIN S/O LT. AZMAT ALI R/O BARBALA, P.S.- HOWLY DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT - HOUSE NO. 75, DARGAH ROAD, HATIGAON, SIJUBARI, P.O. P.S. - HATIGAON, GUWAHATI 781038 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z ALAM, MS. S NAZNEEN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 07-04-2026 Heard Ms. S. Nazneen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. P. Goswami, 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/petitioner, namely, Main Uddin who is apprehending arrest in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 195/2025 registered under Sections 118(2)/109(1) of the BNS, 2023. Page No.# 2/3 3. It is seen that this bail application has wrongly listed in the bail hearing column, though it should have been listed in the motion column. 4. However, it is submitted by Ms. Nazneen, learned counsel that earlier the petitioner got interim pre-arrest bail and accordingly he appeared before the I.O. and his statement was also recorded by the I.O. during investigation. But after filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Trial Court with a regular application for bail and his interim protection was also extended for 15 days. But while he was about to appear before the learned Trial Court, it has come to the notice that the name of the father of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the earlier bail application for which one interlocutory application was also filed for modification/correction of the name of father of the petitioner, but the said interlocutory application was subsequently withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fresh bail application has been filed before this Court. 5. Mr. Goswami, learned APP submitted in this regard that he may be directed to appear before the learned Trial Court with an appropriate application for bail, which may be considered in accordance with law. 6. In that context, Ms. Nazneen, learned counsel submitted that as the case is Sessions triable, there is every possibility of his arrest, in the event he appears before the learned Trial Court before committal of the case. 7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petitioner. 8. It reveals from the annexures filed and the order dated 16.02.2026 that pursuant to the interim bail granted to the petitioner, he appeared before the Page No.# 3/3 I.O., cooperated in the investigation of the case and his statement was also recorded by the I.O. during investigation. But at the time of listing the earlier case, the case was already charge sheeted for which, he was provided 15 days time with interim protection along with a direction to appear before the learned Trial Court. 9. But for the reasons stated above, the petitioner could not appear due to wrong mentioning of the name of his father. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the cooperation extended by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner earlier on 18.11.2025, passed in AB No. 2732/2025 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions with a further direction to the petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court with a regular application for bail, within 20 (twenty) days from the date of order. 12. With the above observation and direction, this pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant