Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./3326/2026 of RAKIB UDDIN AHMED Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 13 October 2026
GAHC010230482026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3326/2026 RAKIB UDDIN AHMED S/O- RAFIQUE AHMED RESIDENT OF VILL-SARAPBHATI NEAR LP SCHOOL, P.O.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR,
GAHC010230482026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3326/2026
RAKIB UDDIN AHMED
S/O- RAFIQUE AHMED
RESIDENT OF VILL-SARAPBHATI NEAR LP SCHOOL, P.O.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR,
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S GOGOI, S BHATTACHARJEE,MS A GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
Date : 14.10.2026 Heard Mr. S. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the petitioner, namely, Rakib Uddin Ahmed, who was arrested on 08.09.2026 in connection with N.L.P.S. Case No. 284/2026, corresponding to
Page 1 of 2
GR Case No. 848/2026, under Sections 317(4)/112/318(4)/319(2)/308(6)/ 308(7)/61(2)/351(2)/351(3)/ 3(5)/3(6)/3(8)/3(9) of the BNS.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague allegations of some people attempting to act as touts and threatening the persons who used to approach the Police Station for redressal of grievance. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 36 days and as such, he has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Addl. PP has objected to the grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that similarly situated persons had been granted bail by different orders of this Court.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the length of detention as well as with regard to the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, I am of the considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required at this stage.
8. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, who shall also be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the continued participation of the petitioner in the investigation of this case.
9. The bail application is disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…