Gauhati High Court
AB/79/2026 of Rahul Amin Vs The State of AP on 28 July 2026
GAHC040010822026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/79/2026 Rahul Amin Son of Shri Fajor Ali, resident of Sonapur, Adhakhana Gaon No.1, PO Sonapur and PS Bihpuria, Lakhimpur District, Assam VERSUS The State of AP
GAHC040010822026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : AB/79/2026
Rahul Amin
Son of Shri Fajor Ali, resident of Sonapur, Adhakhana Gaon No.1, PO Sonapur and PS Bihpuria, Lakhimpur District, Assam
VERSUS
The State of AP
represented by the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Gallen Taloh, Gyamar Tala,Vishal Tatgum Gurung 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 : 29-07-2026 Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. This is an application filed by the applicant under section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Doimukh PS Case No. 46/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/318(4)3(5) of the BNS.
The case arose out of an FIR dated 21.04.2026 lodged by one Smti Biri Rupchi alleging that she got a call from an unknown mobile number – 7896057143, asking her to buy gold from that person. Accordingly, she went to Gumto gate and met 2 (two) persons and after a brief conversation, she paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) for the gold. Subsequently upon checking, the petitioner found out that the gold was fake. The petitioner was granted interim bail on 21.07.2026, pursuant to which he is stated to have appeared before the IO. The learned counsel submits that the allegations are false and concocted and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The scanned CD is received. The statement of the petitioner has been recorded in which he has completely denied the allegations and strongly contended about false implication by the two persons. He has stated details in support of his contention about false implication. The learned PP fairly submits that as the petitioner has appeared before the IO pursuant to the grant of interim bail, perhaps his custodial detention may not be essential. I have considered the matter and in the given circumstances, the interim bail granted vide order dated 21.07.2026 is hereby made absolute, with the further conditions that:-
(i) He shall cooperate with the remaining investigation;
(ii) He shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence. Violation of any of the bail conditions would entail cancellation of the bail. The anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant