Dismissed¶27

Jahangir Alom Alias Jahan Uddin v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Feb 2026AB/3027/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; anticipatory bail / pre-arrest bail rejected; Section 482 BNSS 2023; BNS 2023 Sections 189(4)/190/191(2)/117(2)/109/118(2)/103(1); Chunari P.S. Case No. 05/2025; FIR dated 13/09/2025; incident 12/09/2025; village Roukhowa RBNC part IV; Dhubri/Chapar; land dispute; double death (Lakhipur Hospital); case diary perused; prima facie materials; applicant named among male members on suspicion; bail refused at this stage; case diary sent back.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the materials available in the Case Diary, the Court found prima facie objectionable materials about the involvement of the accused-applicant in the incident narrated in the FIR. ¶25

Jahangir Alom Alias Jahan Uddin Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010283072025

2026:GAU-AS:1811

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/3027/2025

¶6

JAHANGIR ALOM ALIAS JAHAN UDDIN

¶7

S/O BOMAR ALI MUNCHI ALIAS BHOMAR ALI SHEIKH, R/O VILL NOONMATI PT I, PS CHAPAR,DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R A AHMED, MR M HOQUE,MR. B HUSSAIN,MR A ALAM,MR. A A MONDAL

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 10.02.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. A. A. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State.

¶16

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 by the accusedapplicant, namely, Jahangir Alom @ Jahan Uddin, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

with Chunari P. S. Case No. 05/2025, registered under Sections 189(4)/190/191(2)/117(2)/109/ 118(2)/103(1) of the BNS, 2023.

¶19

3. The allegation as reflected in the FIR is that on 13/09/2025, one Golam Osmani, a resident of village Kistomoni Char had lodged a written ejahar at Chunari Police Station alleging that on 12/09/2025 at about 6:30 AM, some persons, namely, Monowar Hussain, Abdul Sattar, Bondesh Ali, Moinuddin, Nuruddin, Akab Ali, Sahar Ali, Juran Ali & Surhab Ali went to cultivate black lentils at village Roukhowa RBNC part IV in an area of 25 bighas of land and when they were cultivating, the FIR named accused persons equipped with deadly weapons like lathis, rods, daos, swords and other sharp weapons went to the place and attacked them causing grievous injuries to all the above named persons. Two persons, namely, Monowar Hussain and Abdus Sattar @ Sattar Ali were taken to Lakhipur Hospital in critical condition but they were declared as brought dead.

¶20

4. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that there was a land dispute between the family members of the informant and the family members of one Insab Ali and Amjad Ali since long. On the day of the incident, when the family members and relatives of the informant went to cultivate in the disputed land, a quarrel took place between the families and relatives of the informant and the aforesaid Insab Ali. He submits that the present accused-applicant was also present at the place of quarrel like many other people but, he is no way involved in any offence as narrated in the FIR. He submits that the FIR has been filed naming all the male members including the present accused-applicant purely on suspicion without verifying the facts. Therefore, he submits that the accused-applicant should be granted pre-arrest bail so that he can co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶21

5. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P., representing the State, objects to granting of any bail to the accused-applicant stating that sufficient incriminating materials about the involvement of the accused-applicant in the alleged incident. Therefore, at this stage,

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

the accused-applicant should not be granted bail.

¶24

6. The Case Diary related to the aforesaid case has been produced before this court and the same has been perused.

¶25

7. On perusal of the materials available in the Case Diary, this Court has found prima facie objectionable materials about the involvement of the accused-applicant in the incident narrated in the FIR.

¶26

8. Having found such prima facie materials against the accused-applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant any anticipatory bail to the accused-applicant at this stage.

¶27

9. In view of the aforesaid, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶28

10. Case Diary to be sent back immediately.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Jahangir Alom Alias Jahan Uddin v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahangir Alom Alias Jahan Uddin v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Ahmed Alias Kolu and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rahul Amin Laskar Vs the State of Assam

Oli Bibi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Abhishek Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Assam

Sofir Uddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Akkel Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam