Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2558/2026 of MAJAHARUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 September 2026
GAHC010188932026 2026:GAU-AS:13848 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2558/2026 MAJAHARUL ISLAM S/O JAMIR ALIVILL-BHEHUGURI. RANGADORIA,P.S. MIKIRBHET, DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP,
GAHC010188932026
2026:GAU-AS:13848
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2558/2026
MAJAHARUL ISLAM
S/O JAMIR ALIVILL-BHEHUGURI. RANGADORIA,P.S. MIKIRBHET, DIST
MORIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MR. R GHOSH,MR. C SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
17.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. K. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP for the State.
2. The Case Diary has been received.
3. This is an application filed under Section 483, BNSS praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner who was arrested on 01.08.2026 in connection with Mikirbheta P.S
Case
No.
103/2025
u/s 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/340(2)/336(3)/316(5), BNS, r/w Section 66(C)/66(D) of Information Technology Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the earlier occasion the petitioner had been initially granted an interim protection of pre- arrest bail
and
had
appeared
before
the
I.O.
However, on production of the Case Diary, this Court by an order dated 25.05.2026, passed in Anticipatory Bail No. 460/2026 had rejected the Anticipatory Bail petition for the petitioner. He has submitted that thereafter, the petitioner had surrendered before the I.O on 01.08.2026, and has been in custody ever since.
5. Today being the 48th day of custody, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigation has progressed to quite some extent and therefore, the continued custody of the petitioner for the investigation at this time may not be further necessary.
6. The learned Addl. PP has submitted that the prime accused in the matter are yet to be arrested and further, there had been recoveries from the petitioner and there is substantial evidence to show his involvement in the alleged offenses.
7. Having regard to the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the release of the petitioner at this stage may hamper the investigation process.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail at this stage is rejected.
9. Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant