AB/2173/2026 of BAHARUL ISLAM AND 2 ORS. Vs STATE OF ASSAM on 29 September 2026

ORDER

30.09.2026

Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. Apprehending arrest in connection with the Barpeta PS Case No. 329/2026, under Sections 191(3)/ 190/ 329(3)/ 117(2)/ 118(2)/ 109/ 351(3) of the BNS, this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, is preferred by applicants, namely, Baharul Islam; Shahinoor Islam @ Sahnur; and Jinnatul Islam, for grant of pre-arrest bail.

3. It is to be noted here that the said case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Shanti Mazumdar, on 03.09.2026.

3.1. The essence of allegation in the FIR is that on 03.09.2026, one Sahidul Haque; Majnu; Baharul; Sahnur; Jinnatul; and Abdul Jalil, had installed an earth- cutting machine upon the land of the informant and thereafter, forcibly laid pipes over the same and then, she requested the accused persons to stop the activities of earth-cutting and excavation work. Thereafter, on 31.08.2026, 26 personnel of the Forest Department came to the spot and stopped the said activities and removed the pipes. Thereafter, suspecting that she had reported the matter to the Forest Department, the accused persons, along with 10 unknown persons, came to her house with sharp weapons and severely assaulted her son, namely, Gobinda Mazumdar and injured him seriously. Then, on hearing the hue and cry of her son, her husband and she came forward and tried to intervene the accused persons and save him. But, the accused persons also attempted to assault and kill her husband and caused serious injuries to him on his right hand, leg and waist and also assaulted her. Further, the accused No. 1 tore her clothes and tried to outrage her modesty by touching her several intimate body parts.

4. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the present applicants are innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR

and that they are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

5. Per-contra, by producing the case diary before this Court, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the materials collected so far in the case diary against the present applicant are inadequate to support the allegation made in the FIR.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

7. The case diary indicates that the IO has achieved significant progress of the case. Further, in view of the materials collected so far in the case diary against the present applicants, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be required, in the interest of investigation.

9. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicants, in connection with Barpeta PS Case No. 329/2026, under Sections 191(3)/ 190/ 329(3)/ 117(2)/ 118(2)/ 109/ 351(3) of the BNS, they shall be enlarged on pre- arrest bail, on their executing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- each only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

10. The above privilege is, however, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed;

(ii) that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, without prior permission.

11. In terms of this AB stands disposed of.

12. The case diary be returned.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant