Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010080652026 2026:GAU-AS:6737 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/859/2026 SUKKUR ALI AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE NUR HUSSAIN SHEIKH, R/O VILL SUAPATA PT IV, PO AND PS BILASIPARA, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783348 2: SABIA KHATUN W/O SUKKUR ALI R/O VILL SUAPATA PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 3: SAJINA BEGUM W/O SAMIYAL HOQUE R/O VILL SUAPATA PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78334 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ISLAM, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS DHRITI HAZARIKA,MRS. S ROY BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Page No.# 2/4 Date : 15.05.2026. Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Sukkur Ali, (2) Sabia Khatun and (3) Sajina Begum, who are apprehending arrest in connection with the Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 59/2026, registered under Section 61(2)/318(2)/109(2)/103(2) of the BNS, 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Islam, the learned counsel that out of the present three accused petitioners, two accused petitioners are already granted with the interim protection and accordingly, they have appeared before the I.O. and cooperated in the investigation of the case. Mr. Islam further submitted that the present petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, a quarrel and tussle took place between the informant side and the petitioners in connection with a land dispute, wherein some persons from the petitioners side also sustained injuries and one cross case is also lodged by the petitioners side but that was not registered by the police till date. He further submitted that the deceased went there to stop the quarrel between the two groups when somehow he sustained injuries but it is not known who caused such injuries on the deceased and it was an unfortunate death. However Mr. Islam, the learned counsel submitted that the accused petitioners are still ready and willing to extend their cooperation in the further Page No.# 3/4 investigation of the case, if they are provided with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused petitioners who along with others have brutally killed the deceased. That apart, they also caused injuries to some other persons. He further submitted that though the interim bail was granted to the petitioner No.2 and 3 being the women, but they actively participated in the alleged offence who not only assaulted the other person but they also caught hold the deceased and the other accused persons accordingly assaulted the deceased as a result of which he died due to severe head injury and other multiple injuries sustained by him. The learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted that the accused petitioners had committed such a heinous offence and took the life of an innocent person. He accordingly submitted that if these persons are given the liberty of pre-arrest bail, apprehension is there to repeat same kind of offence as the informant is still receiving threatening from the petitioners’ side. Mr. Sarma accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it cannot be a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the present accused petitioners. Ms. Roy, the learned counsel for the informant also raised objection and submitted that they have already filed their written objection along with the photographs wherefrom, it is seem that the deceased sustained the grievous head injuries which even touched his brain matters for which he instantly died. The informant side is still receiving threatening from the petitioners’ side for which they have already approached the S.P. concerned, with a complaint. She accordingly submitted that if the accused petitioners are granted with bail, there Page No.# 4/4 is probability of attacking the informant’s side which cannot be denied. Accordingly, Ms. Roy raised objection in granting the pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary and the statement made by the injured as well as by the eye witnesses. It is seen that though the accused petitioner Nos.2 & 3 were granted with interim pre-arrest bail, but from the perusal of the case diary, it is seen that they were actively involved in the alleged offence along with the petitioner No.1 and other co-accused. Considering the gravity of the offence and other materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused petitioners and accordingly, the same stands rejected. The order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 30.04.2026, granted to the accused petitioner Nos.2 & 3, namely, Sabia Khatun and Sajina Begum is hereby stands vacated. This bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant