Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010003842026 2026:GAU-AS:1820 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/119/2026 ASHRAF ALI AND 2 ORS. S/O. ANNAS ALI RESIDENTS OF VILL- AND P.O. EKADI, P.S. HAJO, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781102. 2: IMAN ALI S/O. DANES ALI RESIDENTS OF VILL- AND P.O. EKADI P.S. HAJO DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781102. 3: TACHER ALI S/O. SAMES UDDIN RESIDENTS OF VILL- AND P.O. EKADI P.S. HAJO DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM , REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. W RAHMAN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Page No.# 2/4 ORDER Date : 10-02-2026 Heard Mr. W. Rahman, 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 petitioners in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 387/2025 u/s 190/191(2)/191(3)/304(2)/305/326(g)/329(3)/ 329(4)/ 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Rahman that a false and concocted allegation has been brought against the present petitioner only as a counter blast as the petitioner no. 1 had lodged an FIR after death of his sister as the present informant as well as their family members had killed his sister and who stated to be consumed poison. However, it is a fact that some of the people of that locality got furious and they had damaged the house of the informant. But, these three petitioners are not at all involved in the alleged offence and only as a counter blast, the present FIR has been lodged brining the names of these three petitioners. However, they are ready and willing to extent their cooperation in further investigation of the case, if they are granted with privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present Page No.# 3/4 accused/petitioners and from the statement made by the daughter of the deceased as well as the other victim it is seen that these are the persons who came and set fire in the house of the informant even when all the family members were inside the house. Thus, it is seen that there may be involvement of some other persons and hence custodial interrogation of the present petitioners may be required to know the actual fact of the case. Mr. Sharma accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not a fit case to extent the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary, especially the statement made by the witnesses as well as the daughter of the deceased/victim. It is seen from her evidence that the accused/petitioner who were identified as as well as her family members came to their house and set fire to their house when they were inside the house and could not save any household properties. However, it is a fact that an FIR was lodged by the petitioner no. 1 after suspicious death of his sister but for that reason they cannot take the law in their own hand and cannot commit such a heinous offence of setting fire of household property when the resident were inside the house. 7. Considering all these aspects of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner at this stage and accordingly the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant