Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010048992026 2026:GAU-AS:6101 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/502/2026 TASHIR ALIAS TASHIRUDDIN SEIKH AND ANR SON OF KALU SEIKH PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ISLAMPUR,P.O. HASANPUR, P.S. SUTI, DIST. MURSHIDABAD, PIN CODE- 742201, WEST B ENGAL, AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MALUGRAM, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788002. 2: ABU TAHER SON OF LIYAKAT SEIKH PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ISLAMPUR P.O. HASANPUR P.S. SUTI DIST. MURSHIDABAD PIN CODE- 742201 WEST B ENGAL AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MALUGRAM P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788002 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL, P GANDHIYA,MS. A BORO,MR A BRAHMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Tashir @ Tashiruddin Seikh and (ii) Abu Taher who are apprehending arrest in connection with Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 174/2024 (GR Case No. 266/2024) registered under Sections 137(2)/103 of BNS, 2203. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Lal, learned counsel that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that there are statements of 11 numbers of witnesses recorded during the investigation of the case under Section 180 BNSS corresponding to Section 161 CrPC wherein, four are official witnesses, i.e., 8, 9, 10 and 11 and rest are the independent witnesses including the informant. 5. From the statements made by those witnesses, it is seen that there is no such direct allegation against the present petitioners and the last seen theory is also not applicable to the present case. He further submitted that only on the basis of such statements made by the witnesses, even charge cannot be framed against the petitioners. 6. However, the petitioners are still ready and willing to contest the case by appearing before the learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed, if some interim protection is provided to the petitioners. Page No.# 3/5 7. He further submitted that as the case relates to Section 103 BNS, there is every probability of sending them to judicial custody, if they appear before the committal Court. Further, he submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in similarly situated case, have already granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 8. Mr. Lal, learned counsel further submitted that in the charge sheet, these two petitioners are shown as absconders with a prayer for issuing Warrant of Arrest against them, which is not permissible in the eye of law and police has no power/authority to declare any person as an absconder in a case. 9. Further, he submitted that if pre-arrest bail is provided to the petitioners, they are ready to appear before the learned Trial Court and/or they may be extended with some interim protection, till the case is committed before the learned Sessions Judge. 10. Mr. Goswami, learned APP raised objection and submitted that it is not a case that prima facie there is no evidence against the present petitioners, rather, the present petitioners are the main culprits who committed the murder of the deceased Rahul for some business rivalry. He further submitted that from the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 180 BNSS also shows that these petitioners threatened to kill the deceased out of business rivalry in front of the witnesses. 11. He further submitted that from the statement made in the charge sheet also it is seen that initially the petitioners appeared before the I.O. But after some enquiry they were allowed to go as during that period, the body the deceased was not recovered by police, but after recovery of the dead body of the deceased, two co-accused person have already been arrested and inspite of several attempts being made by police, the petitioners could not be arrested by Page No.# 4/5 police as they were evading police arrest and absconding during the entire period of investigation. 12. Mr. 12. Mr. Goswami, learned APP further submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners and from the statement of the co-accused also it is seen that these are the persons, who committed the murder with the help of other co-accused person, the body of the deceased was dumped in the area, wherefrom it was recovered by police. 13. In that context, Mr. Lal, learned counsel submitted that there cannot be any conviction on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused and these are not admissible in the eye of law. He accordingly submitted that the present petition may be allowed. 14. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR, statement made by the witnesses as well as the charge sheet. 15. It is a case, wherefrom it is seen that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioners prime facie to file charge sheet against these two petitioners. Further from the charge sheet it is seen that during investigation, these two petitioners never cooperated in the investigation and for which they had to be shown as absconders in the charge sheet. 16. However, it is a settled law that the police has no authority to show any accused person as an absconder, but from the record it is seen that even if there is a prayer for issuance of Warrant showing the petitioners as absconders, but the learned committal Court/Trial Court had issued summons against the petitioners asking them to appear before the learned Trial Court to commit the same. Thus, it is seen that inspite of showing the present petitioners as Page No.# 5/5 absconders, the learned Trial Court only issued summons against the present petitioners. 17. So considering all these aspects of the case and on perusal of the case record, it is seen that during investigation, the petitioners did not cooperate with the investigation, though they are the prime suspect of the murder, wherein one person was killed due to some business rivalry. 18. Considering all these aspects, it is seen that it may not be a case, wherein it can be held directly that there is no prima facie evidence at all against the petitioners to file charge sheet or to frame charge against the petitioners. 19. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, some interim protection is provided to the petitioners for their appearance before the learned Trial Court/committal Court with appropriate application for bail, which may be considered in accordance with law and till the next date fixed by the learned Trial court, the petitioners will be under interim protection with a direction to the police to not to take any coercive action against the present petitioners. 20. This pre-arrest bail application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant