Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010093042026 2026:GAU-AS:7298 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/985/2026 ALI AKBOR AND ANR S/O LT.ABDUL GANI R/O VILL- RAUKHOWA RBNC PT.I,P.S. CHUNARI, SUB-DIV. GOALPARA, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM 2: MOYNAL HOQUE S/OLT. MONSER ALI R/O VILL- RAUKHOWA RBNC PT.I P.S. CHUNARI SUB-DIV. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 26.05.2026. Page No.# 2/5 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent State. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Ali Akbor and (2) Moynal Hoque, who are apprehending arrest in connection with the Chunari P.S. Case No. 05/2026, registered under Sections 189(4)/ 190/191(2)/117(2)/ 109/118(2)/103(1) of the BNS, 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel that the present two accused petitioners are not named in the FIR though 27 persons are named in the FIR. The earlier bail petition for the present accused petitioners was rejected by the learned Trial Court after perusing the case diary, considering that the accused petitioner No.1 was involved in the alleged offence and also stated that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused petitioner No.2. Mr. Ahmed further submitted that the accused petitioner No.1 is a 76 years old man and he was not at all involved in the alleged offence. He also cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Ari vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1564, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had granted bail to a person considering his age even at the stage of Second Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the accused petitioner No.2 being the resident of the locality, his name has been incorporated without his involvement in the alleged offence. However both the accused petitioners are still ready and willing to extend their cooperation for further investigation of the case, if they are provided with the Page No.# 3/5 privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that there are no such material against the accused petitioner No.1 Ali Akbor, son of Late Abdul Gani. Rather, there is another Ali Akbor, son of one Ainuddin is involved in the alleged offence but the present accused petitioner No.1 Ali Akbor is not involved in the alleged offence. In regards to accused petitioner No.2, it is submitted by Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.p., Assam that six numbers of eye witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS as well as the statement of the victims, directly implicated the present accused petitioner No.2 and it is also stated that he inflicted injuries to the victims. Mr. Sarma further submitted that in the incident two persons died on the spot and three others have sustained grievous injuries on their persons, for which they have to be hospitalized for a considerable period. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma submitted that the bail may not be considered for the accused petitioner No.2, for the said barbaric incident. Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the accused petitioners submitted in this regard that one person for the petitioners’ side also died in the incident and they have also lodged an FIR for the said incident and the entire incident was due to a land dispute. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary and specially the statement made by the eye witnesses and the victim under Sections 183 as well as under Section 180 of the BNSS. Page No.# 4/5 From the post mortem report of both the deceased, it is seen that there are multiple injuries sustained by them, including the injuries sustained on the vital parts of their body, wherein it is opined by the Doctor that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, which were caused by moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon which were homicidal in nature. That apart, the injury reports of the other three injured show that they sustained grievous injuries on their person caused by sharp as well as by blunt object. Further, it is seen that there are sufficient materials against the accused petitioner No.2, who also inflicted injuries and took active part in the incident. However, considering the materials available in the case diary as well as the submissions made by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam and also considering his age, the accused petitioner No.1 Ali Akbor, this Court is of the opinion that he may be given a chance to cooperate with the investigation of this case. However, the accused/petitioner No.2, namely, Moynal Hoque may not be granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail, at this stage. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner No.1, namely, Ali Akbor, he shall be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on executing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousands) 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 Page No.# 5/5 the case and will 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, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. So far as regards the petitioner No.2, Moynal Hoque is concerned, his prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected at this stage. This bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant