Gauhati High Court
AB/1917/2026 of JAKIR HUSSAIN ALIAS JAKIR ALI ALIAS NIPUL AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 10 September 2026
GAHC010172022026 2026:GAU-AS:13463 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1917/2026 JAKIR HUSSAIN ALIAS JAKIR ALI ALIAS NIPUL AND ANR S/O LATE SIKANDAR AL R/O- VILLAGE- DOLAITOLA, P.O.-SANIADI, P.S. HAJO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: SAFIDUR
GAHC010172022026
2026:GAU-AS:13463
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1917/2026
JAKIR HUSSAIN ALIAS JAKIR ALI ALIAS NIPUL AND ANR
S/O LATE SIKANDAR AL
R/O- VILLAGE- DOLAITOLA, P.O.-SANIADI, P.S. HAJO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
2: SAFIDUR RAHMAN ALIAS SAFID ALI
S/O LATE SIKANDAR ALI
R/O- VILLAGE- DOLAITOLA
P.O.-SANIADI
P.S. HAJO
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI, MR. S ALI,MR B ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
11.09.2026 Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the applicants and also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.
2. This application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the applicants, namely, Jakir Hussain @ Jakir Ali @ Nipul and Safidur Rahman @ Safid Ali, who have been apprehending arrest in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No.831/2022 under Section 341/325/34 IPC and added Section 302 IPC, for grant of pre-arrest bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Jiaul Haque on 02.09.2022. The essence of allegation, in the FIR, dated 02.09.2022, is that a quarrel took place between Majibur Rahman, elder brother of the informant and accused - Riajul Haque (Dhoina), Jakir Ali (Nipul), Reykat Ali (Babul) and Safid Ali and they have assaulted his brother by means of stick and injured him seriously and while he was taken to Hajo medical, he was referred to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, as he sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, he succumb to the injuries. Then on the prayer being made by the I.O., Section 302 IPC is added with permission of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hajo.
4. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is the 2nd anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicants and the first application, being AB No.2855/2022 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2022.
5. Mr. Islam further submits that after dismissal of the earlier application, sufficient time elapsed and in the meantime, the investigation might have been completed and that the applicants are innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged and they are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow this application.
6. Per contra, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has opposed the petition and producing the case diary before this Court, he submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present applicants and the investigation is going on and the offences are serious in nature and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary produced before this Court by Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P.
8. The case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present applicants and that the investigation is yet to be completed and serious prejudice will be caused to the investigating agency if the applicants are granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail at this stage. Their custodial interrogation, in the interest of investigation, seems to be indispensable and accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
9. Case diary be returned. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE