Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010070372026 2026:GAU-AS:5640 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/754/2026 JALIL SK AND ANR S/O NASER SK, R/O VILL MATIAPARA PT- I, P.S. SAPKATA, P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR,BTR, ASSAM, PIN- 783360 2: ROFIQUL ISLAM S/O SAHA ALI SK R/O VILL MATIAPARA PT II P.O. SAPKATA P.S. GOSSAIGAON DIST KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN- 78336 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, SK ABDULLAH,MR. J ABBAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 24-04-2026 Heard Mr. J. Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Jalil Sk and (ii) Rofiqul Islam in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 46/2026 registered under Sections 126(2)/127(2)/118(2)/74/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Abbas, learned counsel that the petitioners are innocent and they are not at all connected with the alleged offence. However, it is a fact that one incident had happened, wherein one old lady was beaten up by some person on suspicion of child lifter, but these petitioners are no way involved in the alleged offence. On the basis of some video footage, some of the persons got arrested in connection with this case and the present petitioners are not related with the said offence. 5. He further submitted that though the case is registered under Section 118(2) BNS, which is the only non-bailable Section of the case, it is seen that the same may not attract against the present petitioners as there was no mention of using of any dangerous weapon of shooting, stabbing or fire etc. Even if it is attracted under Section 117(2) IPC, it is a bailable offence and the other offences are also bailable offence under which the case was registered. 6. Mr. Abbas, learned counsel further submitted that if there is no use of any Page No.# 3/5 dangerous weapon/sharp object, the case cannot attract under Section 118(2) BNS and that apart co-accused persons of the case have already been released on bail by this Court and considering the case of the present petitioners on the same footing, their bail prayer may be considered. 7. However, the petitioners are still ready and willing to extend their cooperation in the further investigation of the case, if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 8. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP submitted in this regard that the daughter of the victim had lodged the FIR after perusal of the CCTV footage and the viral video, wherein it was seen that some persons assaulted her mother on suspicion of a child lifter. 9. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP further submitted that the medical report is available in the case diary wherefrom it is seen that the victim sustained grievous injuries on her person including injury on the scalp and she also sustained fracture injury on her right ankle. 10. He further submitted that a group of person brutally assaulted an old lady only on the suspicion of a child lifter and hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required for the purpose of investigation. 11. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case diary. It is a fact that the victim sustained grievous injury i.e., fracture injury on her right ankle along with some lacerated injury on her scalp, but there is no mention about the type of weapon used in medical report. It is well settled that to attract Section 118(2) BNS, the description of the weapon must be there and it should be a dangerous weapon including sharp object etc. But in the medical report there is no mention about it and though Page No.# 4/5 the injury is reported to be fracture injury. 12. Considering this aspect of the case and the materials available in the case diary, it is seen that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. But the investigation is still under process and during the investigation some other fact may come to light. So considering all these aspects of the case including the medical report and other materials in the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required for the purpose of investigation and accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioners namely, (i) Jalil Sk and (ii) Rofiqul Islam in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 46/2026 registered under Sections 126(2)/127(2)/118(2)/74/3(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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall fully co-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 petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person Page No.# 5/5 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. 14. This pre-arrest bail application accordingly stands disposed of. 15. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant