Gauhati High Court
BA/65/2026 of Zakir Hussain Vs The State of AP on 29 July 2026
GAHC040010912026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/65/2026 Zakir Hussain Son of Shri Abdul Khalek, resident of Kawadi No.2, PO Patiladha, PS Bijni, Chirang District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented by
GAHC040010912026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : BA/65/2026
Zakir Hussain
Son of Shri Abdul Khalek, resident of Kawadi No.2, PO Patiladha, PS Bijni, Chirang District, Assam.
VERSUS
The State of AP
represented by the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Adam Tatak, Karge Angu,Tumba Ango,Goyi Taba Raju,Tukrin Ligu,Tonni Gammi,Tanur Gao,Amy Talom Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
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
Date : 30-07-2026 Heard Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 22/2025, registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(4) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 66D of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was arrested on 28.04.2026 and was first remanded to judicial custody on 29.04.2026.
3. The gist of the allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in an alleged online job fraud operated through the Telegram application.
4. At an earlier stage of hearing, Mr. Tatak, learned counsel for the petitioner, had contended that the statutory period of 90 days prescribed for completion of investigation had already expired.
5. Upon obtaining instructions, Mr. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, places before the Court a wireless communication received from the Investigating Officer stating that, in the meantime, investigation has been completed and Charge-Sheet No. 08/2026 dated 29.07.2026 has been filed before the competent Court.
6. Mr. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, in his usual fairness, submits that even reckoning the period from the date of the petitioner's first remand till the date of charge-sheet on 29.07.2026, the charge-sheet came to be filed on the 92nd day.
7. Be that as it may, the investigation has now been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the completion of investigation and the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner is not warranted.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court if one commences;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner;
(iii) The petitioner shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature or commit any other illegal act during the period of bail.
9. Any violation of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.
10. The bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant CHECKED & VERIFIED Digitally signed by Jumbi Bam Date: 2026.07.30 16:03:43 +05'30'