Disposed

Mustafa Ahmed ANDl 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 May 2025AB/667/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection from arrest in an assault FIR alleging mutual altercation and assault with iron rods; the court found only simple injuries and two cross-FIRs, directing them to appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days with conditional bail upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appear before IO within seven days; on arrest after compliance, bail of Rs. 30,000 each with one surety subject to conditions.

Mustafa Ahmed ANDl 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010061332025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/667/2025

¶6

MUSTAFA AHMED ANDl 3 ORS S/O- ISUB ALI R/O- BAGHARBORI (PART-2) P.S- DISPUR SUB-GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M)ASSAM. PIN- 781022

¶7

2: ASHIF ALI C/O- AZAD ALI R/O- PANJABARI DARANDHA PANJABARI BHAGABATPUR DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM. PIN- 781022 3: NEKIBUR RAHMAN S/O- MAJIBUR RAHMAN R/O- HOUSE NO. 7 DARANDHA SIXMILE GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. PIN- 781022 4: AMANAT ALI C/O- ANOWAR ALI R/O- HOUSE NO. 23 DARANDHA NEAR MASZID SIXMILE KHANAPARA DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 78102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN,MR P SONOWAL,B ALI SK,MR K THAKUR

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 02.05.2025

¶14

1. Heard Ms. S. Yesmin, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶15

2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Mustafa Ahmed, (2) Ashif Ali, (3) Nekibur Rahman, and (4) Amanat Ali, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with the Dispur Police Station Case No. 218/2025 registered under Sections 109(1)/117(2)/191(3) of the BNS, 2023.

¶16

3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that, one Imamul Hussain, had lodged an FIR on 11.03.2025 before the Officer-in-Charge of Dispur Police Station, inter-alia, alleging, that on that day at about 2.00 p.m., there was an altercation between Bahul Hussain and the petitioner No.1, namely, Mustafa Ahmed and the said altercation was resolved at the spot.

¶17

4. However, after some time, the petitioners came near the Srimanta Shankardev Kalakhetra, Panjabari and assaulted Bahul Hussain and his elder brother Imamul Hussain with iron rods and sharp weapons and caused injuries on their person.

¶18

5. It is also alleged that the victims sustained grievious injuries on their person.

¶19

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the FIR are not true in the sense that the petitioners were also being assaulted by the informant and in that

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

respect, an FIR was also lodged by the petitioners before the Dispur Police Station.

¶22

7. She fairly submits that there was an altercation and in the heat of the moment, both parties assaulted each other. However, she submits that none of the parties sustained grievous injuries.

¶23

8. She also submits that the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 are of young age and they, including the petitioner No.3, are ready to cooperate in the investigation as in the event of any arrest, their academic career may be jeopardized.

¶24

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that even if it is assumed that the incident occurred due to the heat of the moment, however, even after the victim was taken to the GNRC, the petitioners went there and threatened the victim in the hospital also.

¶25

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent has also produced the case diary of the Dispur Police Station Case No. 218/2025 and has submitted that the injury report shows that the victim sustained simple injuries.

¶26

11. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the GNRC being the hospital situated nearest to the place where the altercation took place, the petitioners, who were also injured went to the said hospital. However, after seeing the victims there, they left the place. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary of the Dispur Police Station Case No. 218/2025.

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

13. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the victim has sustained only simple injury and it also appears that both the parties are engaged in the mutual altercation and assault and, therefore, two FIRs are filed in connection with the same incident by the rival parties.

¶29

14. Considering the nature of the injury sustained by the victim in this case and the age of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 as well as taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of this case in its entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioners cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation, their custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of the Dispur Police Station Case No. 218/2025.

¶30

15. In view of above, all the above named petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Dispur Police Station Case No. 218/2025 within seven days from the date of this order, and cooperate in the investigation. If they do so within the said period, in the event of their arrest in connection with the Dispur Police Station Case No. 218/2025, they shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i. That the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation.

¶32

ii. That the petitioners 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.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

16. Send back the case diary.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Mustafa Ahmed ANDl 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustafa Ahmed ANDl 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. and Anr. Vs Baliram Singh and Anr.

Biju Ray Vs the State of Assam

Hifzur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Ajgor Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Saifun Nessa @ Charifun Nessa and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

MD Mustaq Ahmed Vs the State of Assam