Abdur Rouf Ahmed Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2025)

Abdur Rouf Ahmed Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in Tarabari P.S. Case No. 27/2025, notwithstanding the alleged violation of condition No. 1 of the interim bail order dated 19.07.2025.

Court's answer

From the case diary it appears that the petitioner violated condition No. 1 imposed at the time of granting interim bail, having threatened the victim to withdraw the case against him.

Ratio / Principle

Grant of anticipatory bail is discretionary in nature; the petitioner has to be clean on his part before he can avail the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Key takeaways

Considering the materials against the petitioner in the case diary, the Court found itself left with no other option but to vacate the interim bail granted by order dated 19.07.2025 and to dismiss the anticipatory bail application.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita), Order dated 04.09.2025 in AB/1642/2025 - Anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 by Abdur Rouf Ahmed, apprehending arrest in Tarabari P.S. Case No. 27/2025 under Sections 319(1)/336(3)/340(2) of BNS. Interim bail had been granted by order dated 19.07.2025 subject to conditions, including 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 disclosure before the Investigating Officer, and that he shall co-operate in the investigation. On the State producing the case diary - recording violation of condition No. 1 (the petitioner threatened the victim to withdraw the case), an FIR lodged by the informants before the Officer-in-charge, Tarabari Police Station on 01.09.2025, and the Investigating Officer's endorsement - the Court held that grant of anticipatory bail is discretionary in nature and the petitioner has to be clean on his part before availing its benefit. Interim bail dated 19.07.2025 vacated; anticipatory bail application dismissed; case diary ordered to be sent back.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010151572025

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : AB/1642/2025

ABDUR ROUF AHMED

S/O- RAHIJ AHMED. R/O- PADMAPARA, P.O.- CHENGA, P.S.- TARABARI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM , PIN-781305

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N BORUAH, MR. A. AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

Date : 04.09.2025

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abdur Rouf Ahmed, who was apprehending his arrest in connection with Tarabari P.S. Case No. 27/2025 under Sections

Page No.# 2/3

319(1)/336(3)/340(2) of BNS.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted interim bail by order dated 19.07.2025 and in pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and co-operated in the investigation.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Tarabari P.S. Case No. 27/2025 and has submitted that though the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer, however, he has violated the condition No. 1 imposed on him while granting interim bail to him as he has threatened the victim to withdraw the case against him. She submits that in this connection, the informants have also lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Tarabari Police Station on 01.09.2025. She submits that there is an endorsement made in the case diary by the Investigating Officer endorsing the said facts. Hence, she prays that the interim order may be vacated and the prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

6. It appears from the record that while granting interim bail to the petitioner, this Court had directed the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer and he shall co-operate in the investigation. However, from the case diary, it appears that he has violated the said condition as grant of anticipatory bail is discretionary in nature, the

Page No.# 3/3

petitioner has to be clean on his part before he can avail the benefit of anticipatory bail.

7. In the instant case, considering the materials against the petitioner in the case diary, this Court is left with no other option but to vacate the interim bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 19.07.2025 and dismiss this anticipatory bail application which this Court accordingly does.

8. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed.

9. Send back the case diary.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant