Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010077722026 2026:GAU-AS:6735 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/818/2026 MOFIK ALI SON OF LATE PIR MAHMUD RESIDENT OF VILL- AMINPARA,P.S. ROWTA, DIST. UDALGURI, (BTR), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SAHARIA, MS K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 15.05.2026. Heard Mr. P.K. Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Mofik Ali, who is apprehending arrest in connection with the Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 12/2026, registered under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Saharia, the learned counsel that the present accused petitioner is innocent and is not involved with the incident as alleged against him in the FIR and from the plain reading of the FIR also, it is seen that the agreement for sale of the vehicle was made between the accused petitioner No.1 and the informant and the present petitioner is no way involved in the execution of the said agreement. However, after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner appeared before the I.O., cooperated in the investigation of the case and his statement is also recorded accordingly. However, the petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Goswami, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that the agreement was executed between the accused petitioner No.1 and the informant but the witnesses have submitted that the accused number 2 i.e. the present petitioner was also present at the time of agreement. However, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and extended his cooperation. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, considering the materials in the case diary and the fact that the accused Page No.# 3/3 petitioner had already extended his cooperation, I find that custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. In view of this, the order of inter pre-arrest bail granted to the accused petitioner on 23.04.2026, is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions. The present bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant