Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2905/2026 of RASHIDUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 22 September 2026
GAHC010209212026 2026:GAU-AS:14134 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2905/2026 RASHIDUL ISLAM S/O JAMIR ALI, R/O VILL - BHEHUGURI WARD NO. 08, P.S.- MIKIRBHETA, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010209212026
2026:GAU-AS:14134
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2905/2026
RASHIDUL ISLAM
S/O JAMIR ALI, R/O VILL - BHEHUGURI WARD NO. 08, P.S.- MIKIRBHETA, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MR. R GHOSH,MR. C SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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
23.09.2026 Heard Mr. S K Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for the grant of bail to the petitioner, namely, Rashidul Islam, in connection with
Moibari
P.S.
Case
No.
82/2026
under
Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/95/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 66(C)/66(D) of the Information and Technology Act.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 01.08.2026 and since then has been in custody.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations relating to cyber crimes have been made in the FIR dated 30.07.2026; however, the petitioner herein is not among the ten named accused persons and was arrested during investigation soon after the FIR. It is also contended that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offences and that he has also been implicated due to some political rivalries.
5. The earlier bail application in respect of the present petitioner was rejected vide order dated 02.09.2026 in Bail Appln. 2519/2026.
6. Upon perusal of the CD, it appears that incriminating material is available therein. However, the petitioner has spent 54 days in custody.
7. Having regard to the above, the prayer for bail is allowed on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Morigaon, Assam.
8. It is provided herein that the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial
Court on each date fixed in the case and shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness.
9. The bail petition stands disposed of as allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant