Bail Appln./2736/2026 of NUR MOHAMMAD Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 24 September 2026

O R D E R

25.09.2026

Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondents.

2. Invoking section 483 BNSS, the petitioner herein is seeking regular bail in connection with Bhangnamari P.S. Case No.04/2026 corresponding to G.R. No.515/2026,

registered

under

sections

61(2)/319 (2)/318(4)/308(6)/308(7)/317(4)/112/351(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2026.

3. The allegations in brief in the complaint lodged by the Police Officer for the Police Station is that upon discreet inquiry, it came to be known that a group of persons having no official authority or professional qualification had been found operating in and around the Police Station for the last six months, keeping and exposing members of the public who come to the police station seeking police assistance. It is further alleged that the accused persons acting in concert and pursuant to conspiracy project themselves as advocates, legal practitioners, police authorized persons or intermediaries, giving unauthorized advice and inducing victims to pay money by falsely claiming that criminal cases could be settled, altered, compromised or withdrawn for consideration. It is further alleged that these persons also threatened to lodge false cases against the victims under the POCSO Act, NDPS Act and BNS, forcing parties to enter into settlements and extort money and property from one or both the sides. It is alleged that the accused persons retain and share the proceeds among themselves and thus, they habitually received and deal with stolen property obtained through cheating, extortion, etc.

4. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, herein, was the Vice President of the local Gaon Panchayat; that, no specific victim has come forward to make these allegations against the petitioner in particular; that, the petitioner has already been in custody for 19 days; that, the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents; that, he has also been already custodialy interrogated by the police.

5. The learned Additional P.P. submits that investigation has revealed some specific allegations against the petitioners, Nur Mohammad and Subor Uddin, though he fairly submits that with regard to accused Matiur Rahman, he did not find any concrete materials and one person has only stated that he has heard about his involvement as well.

6. It is submitted by the learned Additional P.P. that during the investigation, some witnesses and/victims have been examined, who have stated that the accused persons Nur Mohammad and Sobur Uddin have taken money for settlement of their matter in the police station and in certain cases, they were also threatened with false implication, if money is not paid.

7. The case diary has been placed before the Court along with the bail objection filed by the IO. I have carefully perused the bail objection and the relevant portions of the case diary. In the bail objection, the IO has contended that the accused persons have been found involved in the alleged offences and that if granted bail, they may indulge in similar type of activities and also tamper with the evidence.

8. Upon going through the case diary, I find that the complainant has supported the allegations. Several witnesses have stated in their statements that the accused persons have represented to them that they would settle their case pending in the police station in return for money. One of the witnesses stated that despite giving money, he was not successful in settling the case.

9. Two of the witnesses have stated that, some of these witnesses have also stated that they were threatened by these accused persons that if they do not give money, they might go to jail. Investigation has progressed but still not completed.

10. Considering the nature of the alleged offenses, the police has done well to crack down on these alleged activities, if any. In fact, prompt action can nip these alleged activities in the bud. The police should also make it known to the members of the public visiting the police station that if any persons project themselves to be representing the police to help them illegally in their matters, the same should be promptly brought to the notice of the police personnel of the concerned police station.

11. Thus, the investigation has revealed incriminating materials against the present accused petitioner. I also find from the materials that the accused petitioner has been thoroughly interrogated during their two days police remand. Keeping in mind, despite the incriminating materials revealed against the petitioner, seeing the progress of investigation, their custodial examination in police remand and the fact that several co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench as well as by this Court, I am of the considered opinion that while investigation must continue and be taken to the logical conclusion, the accused petitioner can be granted bail at this stage, subject however to suitable conditions.

12. In such view of the matter, I allow the bail petition and accordingly, the accused person is hereby allowed to go on bail of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned court. Further, the following conditions are imposed:

(i) He shall not abscond.

(ii) He shall render full co-operation to remaining investigation.

(ii) He shall not hamper or tamper with evidence.

(iii) He shall not in any manner try to intimidate, harass, harm, or try to influence any witnesses.

(iv) He shall not misuse his liberty to commit any illegal activities, including any activities of the kind for which they are being prosecuted. In case of violation of any or more of the bail conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a suitable application before this court or the jurisdictional Sessions Court for cancellation of the bail.

13. Return back the case diary.

14. The bail petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant