Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010088132026 2026:GAU-AS:7056 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/928/2026 MD. HUSSAIN ALI S/O. RUSMAT ALI, R/O. NO. 1 SANMILANI, P/O. RAKSHASMARI, P/S. MAZBAT, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784507 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. NAYAN J. MEDHI, DR ANKIT TODI,ABHISHEK TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A NATH(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 21.05.2026 Heard Mr. H R A Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N J Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Mr. A Nath, the learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Khatkhati P.S. Case No. 07/2026 u/s 61(2)/308(2)/115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. 4. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submitted in this regard that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is the allegation against the accused no. 2 who alleged to have shown a pistol and he already got arrested in connection with this case. 5. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that after lodging of the FIR their truck association held a meeting wherein it has been held that the present petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and the FIR was lodged by one of the member of the association mistakenly, though the alleged incident had taken place in Dimapur, Nagaland. The informant also wrote a letter to the Officer-in- Charge of the concerned police station stating that due to some misunderstanding the case was lodged by him, though the incident has taken place not in Khatkhati but in Dimapur under Nagaland. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of this case, if he is granted with pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there cannot be any compromise under the sections which the case is registered against the present petitioner. There is clear allegation of extortion against the present petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is still under process and the firearm, which was alleged to have shown to the Page No.# 3/4 informant is yet to be recovered by the police. More so, he submitted that the decision of the truck association as well as the letter to the OC concerned is also not available in the Case Diary. He accordingly raised objection and submitted that it cannot be a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 7. Mr. Nath, the learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in this regard that matter has already been settled between the parties and the FIR was lodged only mistakenly and the place of incident also identified wrongly. He further submitted that the informant went to the police station with the letter addressed to the O/C but, it was not accepted by the Investigating Officer. He has no objection if the petitioner is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, it is seen that the matter is not a compoundable case. However, it seems that the petitioner as well as the informant side had arrived at a settlement and considering this aspect of the case, this Court is of opinion that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. In view of this, I find it a fit case wherein the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the present petitioner and accordingly the prayer is allowed. 9. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner, namely, Md. Hussain Ali in connection with Khatkhati P.S. Case No. 07/2026 u/s 61(2)/308(2)/115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on his executing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:- Page No.# 4/4 (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer within 7(seven) days; (ii) that the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 10. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant