Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010084592026 2026:GAU-AS:6979 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/896/2026 UMME SALEMA SULTANA AND 6 ORS. D/O OSMAN GONI, R/O VILL KAZAIKAT PT IV, PO AND PS BILASIPARA, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783348 2: LUTFOR RAHMAN S/O OSMAN GONI R/O VILL KAZAIKAT PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 3: FARUQUE ABDULLAH ALIAS ABDULLA S/O OSMAN GONI R/O VILL KAZAIKAT PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 4: RUSTOM ALI MOZUMDAR S/O LT HATEM ALI R/O VILL KAZAIKAT PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 5: HAZRAT ALI S/O LT HATEM ALI R/O VILL KAZAIKAT PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 PIN 783348 6: OSMAN GONI SHEIKH S/O LT HATEM ALI R/O VILL KAZAIKAT PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 7: MINARUL HOQUE S/O AKTAR HUSSAIN R/O VILL KAZAIKAT 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, MR A S TAPADAR,,MR M AHMED(INFORMANT),MR. A S TAPADER(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 20-05-2026 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, the learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of State respondent and Mr. A S Tapadar, the learned counsel appearing for the informant. Page No.# 3/8 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 Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 91/2026 u/s 126(2)/308(2)/117(2)/303(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, the marriage ceremony of the accused/petitioner no. 1 is fixed on 25.03.2026 and only with an intention to stop the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 they have created story and then FIR has been lodged with some false and concocted allegations. Nothing had happened as alleged in the FIR on the day of incident and there is no information with the present petitioner if any incident had happened on 24.03.2026 as alleged in the FIR. 4. Mr. Islam further submitted that in the written objection filed by the informant one Injury Report and one X-Ray Report are also furnished along with the written objection. It is seen from the Injury Report that the Injury Report was seems to be registered on 07.05.2026, wherein the doctor who issued the Injury Report had put his signature on 02.05.2026 i.e. 5 days prior to the date of registration. Apart from that the date mentioned in the Case No. 91/2026 dated 30.04.2026 in the Injury Report which itself contradicts the allegation made in the FIR as per which the incident took place on 24.03.2026. He further submitted that one X-Ray Report is also furnished along with the objection wherein it seems to be issued on 07.04.2026 from Kokrajhar Medical College & Hospital, though there is no mention about any treatment in the Kokrajhar Medical Hospital in the FIR. As per FIR, the treatment was provided to the victim in GMCH. Accordingly, he submitted that those contradictory statements Page No.# 4/8 and contradictory documents submitted by the informant side itself prove that they are trying to bring a false and concocted story only for the previous grudge against the petitioners. Mr. Islam however submitted that all the petitioners are ready and willing to extend their cooperation in further investigation of this case, if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against all the petitioners. He further submitted that initially the victim was admitted in the Dhubri Hospital wherefrom he was shifted to GMCH and under reference of the doctor the victim was treated in the hospital of Patna and then again as per the Report he was again took his treatment at Kokrajhar Medical College and Hospital. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma submitted that there cannot be any discrimination in regards to the treatment taken by the victim in GMCH as well as Patna and Kokrajhar Medical College. 6. Mr. Sharma further submitted that there found two grievous injuries in his person along with one simple injury. It is a fact that there is no such eye- witness to the incident. But, one eye-witness saw the victim while holding his hand wherein his ankle was found to be dislocated for the injury sustained by him. Apart from that, there are other eye-witnesses who saw the accused/persons are fleeing away from the place of incident. 7. Mr. Sharma further submitted that subsequently he was again admitted in Kokrajhar Medical College & Hospital on 03.04.2026 and he is discharged on 10.04.2026 from the Medical College & Hospital. Mr. Sharma accordingly submitted that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioners may not be considered at this stage. 8. Mr. Tapadar, the learned counsel appearing for the informant raised Page No.# 5/8 vehement objection and submitted that the petitioners have made contradictory statement in their petition. He submitted that in one hand they are saying that nothing had happened on the day of incident and on the other hand in the additional-affidavit it is stated that the victim met with an accident on the day of incident, which itself seems to be contradictory and that apart there are some criminal antecedent for the petitioners as the father of the accused/petitioner no. 1 is an accused of a murder case which is still pending. 9. Mr. Tapadar further submitted that all the accused/petitioners are still threatening and they are very dangerous person. Accordingly there are not only flight risk but, there are probability of hampering and tampering with the investigation and life of the victim is also at risk. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Tapadar that the bone of contention of the case is that only to prevent the marriage of the accused/petitioner no. 1 the FIR has been lodged with some false allegation. But, as per the information received from the informant side, the accused/petitioner no. 1 already got married on 25.03.2024, the date which was fixed for her marriage. Mr. Tapadar accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners. 10. Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Advocate submitted in that regard that all the family members of the petitioners have been entangled in the case and there is no evidence as to who assaulted the victim for which he sustained such kind of injury. More so, the accused/petitioner no. 4 is a government employee and his identity card is also furnished and thus there cannot be any flight risk of the accused/petitioner no. 4, who is a government employee. 11. In that context Mr. Sharma, the learned Addl. PP has submitted that the names of every petitioner have been specifically mentioned by the victims in the Page No.# 6/8 statement recorded therein. 12. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record, the affidavit-in-opposition, objection and other relevant annexure filed along with the petition. Further, the Case Diary is also perused. One of the issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are discrepancies in the medical documents which is submitted by the informant along with their objection petition, but on perusal of the record as well as from the Case Diary it is seen that Injury Report was issued by the Medical College Hospital on the day itself when he was provided with treatment and the doctors signed the Injury Report on 02.05.2026. But, it was subsequently issued on 07.05.2026 after registration of the Injury Report. Thus, there cannot be any discrepancy in the Injury Report as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Apart from that, there is also medical documents from Kokrajhar Medical College & Hospital wherefrom it is seen that the victim was admitted in the Kokrjhar Medical College Hospital after he was released from Patna wherein he was admitted and undergone treatment for sufficient period. From the Case Diary it is seen that the victim sustained two grievous injuries on his person including one simple injury and the eye-witnesses also saw the accused/petitioners fleeing away from the place of incident at the relevant time. From the statement made by the witnesses as well as the victim also it is seen that all the accused/petitioners are seems to be involved in the alleged offence, where the victim was brutally assaulted by them. So considering the materials in the case records, submissions made by learned counsels for both sides and also considering the submission made by Mr. Tapadar regarding the risk of the informant, this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail for the accused/petitioners may not be granted at this stage. Page No.# 7/8 However, the accused/petitioner no. 4 who is stated to be a government employee, it is seen that there may not be any flight risk and considering all these aspects of the case, the prayer for petitioner no. 4 Rustam Ali Mozumdar is hereby granted with privilege of pre-arrest bail with the following terms and conditions. 13. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner no. 4, namely, Rustom Ali Mozumdar in connection with Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 91/2026 u/s 126(2)/308(2)/117(2)/303(2)/3(5) 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: (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. Page No.# 8/8 14. The prayer for pre-arrest bail of the other accused/petitioners, namely, Umme Salema Sultana, Lutfor Rahman, Faruque Abdullah @ Abdulla, Hazrat Ali, Osman Goni and Minarul Hoque is hereby rejected at this stage. 15. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 16. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant