Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3628 (GAU)

ABDUL SAHID ALIAS SAHID SEIKH ALIAS CHAHID SHEIKH AND 2 ORS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/451/2026 · 2026-03-05

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010041062026 2026:GAU-AS:3337 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/451/2026 ABDUL SAHID ALIAS SAHID SEIKH ALIAS CHAHID SHEIKH AND 2 ORS S/O LATE MEHER ALI, R/O VILL. KOLBARI, P.O. BHULUKADOBA, PS. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781317, ASSAM. 2: SARIFUL ALI ALIAS SORIFUL ALI S/O LATE HASMAT ALI R/O VILL. KOLBARI P.O. BHULUKADOBA P.S. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA PIN 781317 ASSAM. 3: MAZID ALI ALIAS MOZID ALI S/O LATE BAKTAJAMAL R/O VILL. KOLBARI P.O. BHULUKADOBA P.S. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA PIN 781317 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS. U NANDA,MS. S. CHANDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 06.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This is a second pre-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, namely, (i) Abdul Sahid @ Sahid Sheikh @ Chahid Sheikh, (ii) Sariful Ali @ Soriful Ali, (iii) Mazid Ali @ Mozid Ali. 3. The case arose out of an ejahar dated 30.07.2025, lodged by one Sakiyet Ali alleging inter alia that on 29.07.2025 at around 7:40 PM, while his elder brother, namely, Sorhab Ali, was returning on a motorcycle and had reached near the house of one Debnath, the accused persons, in a pre-planned manner due to previous grudge, stabbed his brother and caused his death, and later his body was found by passersby. 4. Perused the earlier order dated 08.01.2026 passed in AB 2885/2025, wherefrom it appears that after perusal of the Case Diary and upon finding sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners and forming the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was necessary, this Court had rejected the pre-arrest bail application. No new ground for grant of bail is made Page No.# 3/3 out in the present application warranting further consideration of the Case Diary. 5. In view of the above, the instant application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant