Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010091472026 2026:GAU-AS:6729 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1253/2026 REZOAN ALI ALIAS REZUAN ALI AND 2 ORS. S/O SUKKUR ALI, R/O VILL SUAPATA PT IV, PO AND PS BILASIPARA, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783348 2: REZZAK ALI S/O SUKKUR ALI R/O VILL SUAPATA PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 3: SAMIUL HOQUE ALIAS SAMIYAL HOQUE S/O SUKKUR ALI 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 : MS. N NASRIN, MR J ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Page No.# 2/5 O R D E R 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 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of regular bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Rezoan Ali @ Rezuan Ali, (2) Razzak Ali and (3) Samiul Hoque @ Samiyal Hoque, who are languishing in the jail hajot 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 present petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. He also submitted that a quarrel followed by a tussle took place between the informant side and the accused petitioners’ side 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 Page No.# 3/5 the accused petitioners are still ready and willing to extend their cooperation in the further investigation of the case, if they are released bail. Mr. Islam further submitted that the accused petitioner No.1 is in the custody for last 81 days, petitioner No.2 for 74 days and the petitioner No.3 is in the custody for 46 days and considering their length of detention also, they may be released on bail as the I.O. had got sufficient opportunity to interrogate them keeping them in the police custody. 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, the accused petitioners had committed such a heinous offence which took the life of an innocent person. He accordingly submitted that if these persons are released on bail, there is apprehension of repeating the 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 bail to the present accused petitioners at this stage, considering the fact that the accused petitioners are actively involved in the alleged offence and all were armed with the deadly weapons and assaulted the victims causing death of one person. From the case diary it reveals that how all the accused petitioners were involved in the alleged offence and how they committed such a heinous crime, killing a person instantly and there is probability of filing the charge sheet in the case within the stipulated period. 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 Page No.# 4/5 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 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 as well as 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 to the present accused petitioner Nos.2 & 3 at this stage and accordingly, the same stands rejected. However, considering the length of detention of the accused petitioner No.1, namely, Rezoan Ali @ Rezuan Ali, I find it to be a fit case wherein the privilege of bail can be extended to him . Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM (M), Bilasipara, the accused petitioner, namely, Rezoan Ali @ Rezuan Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat 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 Page No.# 5/5 to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned SDJM (M), Bilasipara, without prior permission, and (iii) that the petitioner shall submit copy of his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned SDJM (M), Bilasipara. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant