[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 6 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010030302026
2026:GAU-AS:3284
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./469/2026
GULJAR HUSSAIN
SON OF ABDUL HAI
RESIDENT OF MAHGULI BARGUIA, P.S.NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. NORTH
LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM,MR N ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 06.03.2026.
Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.
Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for grant of bail
to the accused/petitioner, namely, Guljar Hussain, who has been arrested on
Page No.# 2/5
19.01.2026, in connection with the Garchuk P.S. Case No. 14/2026, under
Sections 61(2)/318(4)/179/180 of the BNS, 2023.
3. The case diary has already been received and perused the same.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Haque, the learned counsel that the present
accused petitioner is innocent and no way involved with the alleged offence. It
is a fact that on the date of incident, the petitioner along with two others were
having tea in a dhaba, when the police came and arrested them from the said
dhaba. It is alleged that some fake currencies and fake gold were recovered
from a vehicle which was parked near the dhaba and it is alleged that the
present accused petitioner along with co-accused were possessing and
occupying the said vehicle, where from the fake currencies and fake gold were
alleged to have been recovered. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the present accused petitioner was not the occupant of the said
vehicle wherefrom the alleged recovery were made. However, from the reliable
sources it is learnt that one Islam Ali was the registered owner of the said
vehicle and the present accused petitioner is not at all associated with the said
offence.
5. Mr. Haque, the learned counsel further submitted that though the grounds
of arrest was communicated to the present petitioner through notice under
Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, but there was no communication of the grounds
of arrest to his family members under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. He further
submitted that it is stated by the police that one WT message was sent to the
North Lakhimpur Police Station by the Garchuk Police Station but till date, the
family members of the present accused petitioner are not intimated regarding
Page No.# 3/5
his arrest. Further, Mr. Haque submitted that the present accused petitioner is
behind the bar since last 43 days and hence, the I.O. got sufficient opportunity
to interrogate him, keeping him in custody and hence, further custodial
interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. However,
the present accused petitioner is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in
the further investigation of this case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-
arrest bail.
6. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that
there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner and he along
with two other co-accused were travelling by the said vehicle from where the
fake currency of near about Rs.99,000/- and fake gold weighing 1.39 kg. were
recovered. The learned Addl. P.P., Assam further submitted that the present
accused petitioner may not be the registered owner of the said vehicle but at
the time of relevant incident, the vehicle was in the possession of the present
petitioner and two other co-accused. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that from
the inquiry of the I.O. as well as the materials available in the case diary, it is
seen that WT message was sent to the O/C of the North Lakhimpur Police
Station by the O/C of the Garchuk Police Station, for onward communication of
arrest of the petitioner to his family members as per Section 48 of the BNSS. He
further submitted that it is also learnt from the O/C of the North Lakhimpur
Police Station that he had already made telephonic conversation with the family
members of the present accused petitioner but till date, there is no information
as to whether they have appeared before the concerned police station/before
the I.O. But the I.O. took all endeavors to issue notice to the family members of
the present accused petitioner. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P. accordingly
raised objection and submitted that it may not be a fit case for granting bail to
Page No.# 4/5
the present accused petitioner.
7. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I
have also perused the case diary wherefrom it is seen that there are sufficient
materials against the present accused petitioner and the fake currency and fake
gold were also allegedly recovered from the vehicle which was possessed by
them. In the same time, it is seen that the I.O. took all endeavors to intimate
the family members regarding the arrest of the present accused petitioner,
though the family members of the petitioner are not yet appeared before the
I.O. But it is seen that the main purpose of intimating the family members of
the accused person is to file bail application before the concerned Court for his
release, which has already been done by the accused petitioner and accordingly,
the present bail application has been filed for his release on bail. However, in
the same time, it cannot be denied that the accused petitioner is in the custody
since last 43 days and the I.O. sufficient opportunity to interrogate the present
accused petitioner keeping him in custody. In the same time, the recovery has
already been made from the seized vehicle.
8. Considering all these aspects of the case, without going detail into the
merit of the case, only consider the length of detention, I find that further
custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation.
9. Accordingly, i find it to be a fit case wherein the privilege of bail can be
extended to the present accused petitioner.
10. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) only with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction
Page No.# 5/5
of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, the accused petitioner, namely,
namely, Guljar Hussain, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM,
Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, without prior permission, and
(iii) that the petitioner shall submit copy of his Aadhar Card and PAN Card
before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.
11. In terms of above, this bail application stands allowed and disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
