Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010081542026 2026:GAU-AS:6975 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/899/2026 AINUL HOQUE ALIAS AINUL AND 2 ORS. S/O NOWSHAD ALI 2: NOWSHAD ALI S/O LATE KHARITULLAH SK. 3: NAZIR HUSSAIN @ NAZIR S/O LATE MOKSED ALI ALL ARE RESIDENT OF MADHUSOULMARI PT.II (KHAS KHAMAR) P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A T SARKAR, S R DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A MISHRA(INFORMANT),MR. SURAJIT DAS(INFORMANT),MD A RAHMAN(INFORMANT),MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(INFORMANT) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 20.05.2026. Page No.# 2/5 Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the informant. This is an application u/s 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, Ainul Hoque @ Ainul, Nowshad Ali and Nazir Hussain @ Nazir, in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 234/2025, under Sections 61(2)/103(1) of the BNS, 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present accused petitioners are innocent and they are not involved in the alleged offence. He further submitted that two FIRs were lodged for the same incident; one is by the wife of the deceased and subsequently another FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased and in both the FIRs, two sets of accused persons have been named but the present accused petitioners are not named in those two FIRs. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the charge sheet also there is no mention about the specific role attributed by the accused petitioners to implicate them with the present case. The present accused petitioners were not aware about pendency of the case nor during the entire investigation, police ever searched for them. All the accused petitioners are from the same family and they are falsely implicated in this case without their involvement. The learned counsel further submitted that one of the co- accused of the case has already been granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail by the coordinate Bench of this High Court and considering the case of the present petitioners in the same footing, their prayer may also be considered. Page No.# 3/5 However, all the petitioners are still ready and willing to contest the case by appearing before the learned Trial Court below, as and when the date is fixed. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in this regard that there is another case pending against the present accused petitioners along with the victim/deceased and when the deceased got bail, the present petitioners along with others were in impression that he managed to come out on bail. Thereafter, the accused petitioners made a conspiracy and killed the victim by assaulting him brutally by all the accused persons including the present petitioners. Mr. Mishra accordingly submitted that one session case being Sessions Case No.236/2023, arising out of Gauripur P.S. Case No.3/2023 is pending against the present petitioners and thus, it is seen that there are criminal antecedent against the present accused petitioners. Mr. Mishra accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused petitioners. Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised vehement objection and submitted that the present accused petitioners never cooperated in the investigation and they were absconding and avoiding the arrest during the investigation for which they could not be apprehended by the police in spite of their best effort. He further submitted that two eye witnesses have specifically mentioned about these three accused petitioners and one of the eye witnesses also given his statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. From the statement made by three of the eye witnesses, it reveals that they have specifically identified the accused petitioners who along with the others brutally assaulted the victim with sharp object and committed his murder. Mr. Sarma further submitted that the order of the Hon’ble coordinate Bench of this Court, passed Page No.# 4/5 in connection with another accused petitioner, it reveals that there is no eye witness for the said accused persons and he was charge sheeted only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused and accordingly, considering those aspects of the case, the pre-arrest bail for the co-accused was considered by the learned coordinate Bench. In that context, Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, in SLP (Crl.) No.9431/2023 wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that parity is not the rule and cannot be the only ground for granting bail and the Court is to see the role played by the accused petitioners. Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the accused petitioners, the privilege of pre-arrest bail. He further submitted that, initially summons were issued to the present petitioners but in spite of receipt of summons, they did not appear before the learned Trial Court below, for which the NBWA was issued against them at present. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR. Accordingly, it is seen that the case has already been charge sheeted showing the present petitioners as absconders along with some others. From the statement made in the charge sheet as well as statement of the eye witnesses including the statement of the witness recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it is seen that these three petitioners are specifically identified and mentioned about them as to how they brutally assaulted the victim. Further, it is seen from Page No.# 5/5 the note of the I.O. that during the investigation, the present accused petitioners never cooperated in the investigation, for which they have to be shown as absconders in the charge sheet. Further, considering the submissions made by Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, it is also seen that ground of parity may not be applicable in all cases wherein the role played by the present accused petitioners are specifically mentioned by the witnesses. However, without going further detail into the merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that some interim protection may be provided to the present accused petitioners, with a direction to appear before the learned Trial Court below with a regular bail application, which may be considered in accordance with law and the NBWA issued against them may be kept in abeyance for 15 (fifteen) days from today. With the above observation, the present anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant