Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010109942026 2026:GAU-AS:9556 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1213/2026 MOJAMMEL HOQUE AND ANR SON OF TAJIM ALI, RESIDENT OF BIJNI GAON, PURAN BIJNI, POST OFFICE BIJNI, POLICE STATION BIJNI, DISTRICT CHIRANG, ASSAM. 2: ARJUNA BEGUM WIFE OF HASIM ALI AND DAUGHTER OF TAJIM ALI RESIDENT OF BIJNI GAON PURAN BIJNI POST OFFICE BIJNI POLICE STATION BIJNI DISTRICT CHIRANG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DUBEY, MS N B KAYASTHA,MR. A N I HUSSAIN,MS. A B KAYASTHA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 14.07.2026 Heard Mr. R Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State Page No.# 2/3 respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioners, namely, Mojammel Hoque and Arjuna Begum in connection with Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 48/2026 u/s 61(2)/318(4)/316(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Dubey that the present accused/petitioners are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that by suppressing the original facts of the present case the FIR was lodged with some false and concocted allegation against the petitioner no. 1. He further submitted that initially there was an agreement with petitioner no. 2 for sale of the said excavator on 26.03.2025. But, in the said agreement also it was stated that the vehicle is in possession of a person in Meghalaya and the petitioner no. 2 has to use the vehicle bringing it from Meghalaya. But, subsequently as she could not pay the amount agreed upon, the agreement was subsequently cancelled on 19.08.2025. But, on the very that day i.e. on 19.08.2025 another agreement was executed with the petitioner no. 1 with the same terms and conditions and in that case also the vehicle was in possession of the person from Meghalaya. However, it is a fact that he came to know by using the documents of the vehicle and after sanctioning of the loan the petitioner had also paid three installments for the said loan which he obtained from the bank. But, at present he is not in a position to use the machinery as it is in possession of a person in Mehgalaya. By suppressing all these facts of the case, a false case is lodged against the present petitioners. The petitioner no. 2 is not involved in the alleged offence but some allegations are also brought against the petitioner no. 2 and for which the anticipatory bail prayer has been Page No.# 3/3 made on behalf of both the petitioner nos. 1 & 2. However, they are ready and willing to extend their cooperation in further investigation of this case, if they are granted with some interim protection. 4. Ms. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submitted that it is the allegation of the informant that he obtained loan by mortgaging all the documents of the petitioners without giving the payment of agreed amount and thus he cheated the informant and hence the FIR is lodged. 5. I have considered the submission at the bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the case diary. 6. The petitioners have appeared before the IO and they have co-operated with the investigation. It appears that they have not violated the bail conditions. Thereby, the interim order dated 08.06.2026 is made absolute under the same terms and conditions. 7. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant