Gauhati High Court
AB/2529/2026 of HAMIDUL KHAN Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR on 6 October 2026
GAHC010222332026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2529/2026 HAMIDUL KHAN S/O RAHIJ KHAN ALIAS RAJIH KHAN, R/O VILL GALIA, GERAMARA GAON, PO GERAMARI, PS HOWLY, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM PIN 781314 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
GAHC010222332026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2529/2026
HAMIDUL KHAN
S/O RAHIJ KHAN ALIAS RAJIH KHAN, R/O VILL GALIA, GERAMARA
GAON, PO GERAMARI, PS HOWLY, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM PIN 781314
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE ASSTT SGI
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALIM SK, MR K ISLAM,MD. I H KHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
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 : 07.10.2026
Heard Mr. A. Alim SK, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre arrest bail in connection with Cyber South West PS Case No. 296/2026(e-FIR No. 296/2026)
registered under Section 318(4)/319/340/61(2) of BNS, 2023. The case of the petitioner is that he was served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, by which he was apprised that during investigation of the e-FIR Case No. 296/2026, it was found out that certain facts and circumstances were known to the petitioner and he was called by the said notice to the Police Station. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had examination on that day and that he could not appear but the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will appear before the concerned Police Officer as and when called by them.
3. On the other hand, Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that there is no apprehension on the part of the petitioner and that he was only called for getting certain facts and circumstances with regard to a particular case.
4. Upon considerations of the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, more so in view of the fact that the petitioner could not appear before the police on the date he was called and also due to the pleadings narrated in the petition that he has apprehensions of being arrested by the Police Officer, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority under the following conditions:
i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order.
ii) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when called for.
iii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case.
iv) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority.
5. Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant