Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010124552026 2026:GAU-AS:9741 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1399/2026 SHAHIDUL HOQUE S/O JOYNAL HOQUE RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 19, P.S. HOJAI DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALAM, MS. M BHUYAN,MS. P BORAH,MS P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 16.07.2026 Heard Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner, namely, Shahidul Hoque, has filed this application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, with prayer for pre-arrest bail, as he is apprehending arrest, in connection with CID Hojai P.S. Case No. 46/2026, registered under Sections 419/468/471/34 of IPC,1860. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has married a woman, who is Bangladeshi citizen and he had helped the woman to procure false documents as an Indian citizen. It is also alleged that the petitioner has also helped to procure illegal documents for the children of the co-accused. 4. The informant is the petitioner’s wife but the marriage between the petitioner and the informant has been struck by a chord of disharmony due to the illicit relationship between the petitioner and the other woman, who is a Bangladeshi citizen at present. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection against the petition for pre-arrest bail. 6. It is submitted that there are incriminating materials to show that the co-accused of the petitioner was a Bangladeshi citizen, and the Investigating Agency has also obtained documents indicating that the co-accused, being a Bangladeshi citizen, has fraudulently acquired Indian citizenship through fake Page No.# 3/3 documents. It is also submitted that there are incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner for helping the co-accused procure fake documents as an Indian citizen. 7. I have also scrutinized the case diary. The case diary reveals incriminating materials against the petitioner. 8. At this juncture, there appears to be no justified ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. Petition is rejected at this stage, as it appears that if the petitioner is insulated by an order of anticipatory bail, investigation may be adversely affected. 10. Send back the Case Diary. 11. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant