Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010063612026 2026:GAU-AS:6175 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/673/2026 MIRAZUL HOQUE AND ANR S/O LT. SOFIUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- PATAKATA, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA,DIST. SOUTH SALMARA- MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783127. 2: ABDUR ROHIM S/O LT. SOFIUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- PATAKATA P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-783127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, MR. A KHALEK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sarma, 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) Mirazul Hoque and (ii) Abdur Rohim who are apprehending arrest in connection with South Salmara P.S. Case No. 11/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/64(1)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel that the present petitioners are the parents/guardians of the prime accused one Sohel and they are not at all related with the alleged offence. He further submitted that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioners already appeared before the I.O. and their statements are also recorded. 5. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel further submitted that 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. 6. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted in this regard that there are some incriminating materials against the present petitioners, however, they have already appeared before the I.O. and extended their cooperation in the further investigation of the case. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the materials available in the case diary and other aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not Page No.# 3/3 be necessary for the purpose of investigation of the case and accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 8. In view of this, the interim bail granted to the present petitioners vide order dated 27.03.2026 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions. 9. With the above observation and direction, this pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. 10. Return the case diary herewith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant