Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2550/2026 of SHRI PANKAJ DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 15 September 2026
GAHC010182362026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2550/2026 SHRI PANKAJ DAS SON OF SHRI AJIT DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHOPATARI, P.S. CHANGSARI, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP,
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010182362026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2550/2026
SHRI PANKAJ DAS
SON OF SHRI AJIT DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHOPATARI, P.S.
CHANGSARI, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K
DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE 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
Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for regular bail to the petitioner namely Sri Pankaj Das, who was arrested on 19.07.2026 in connection with CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 11/2026 registered under Sections 319(2)/ 336(3)/ 340(2)/ 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023, read with Sections 66/ 66C/ 66D of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008.
3. The allegation in the FIR pertains to creation of suspicious email address Page No.# 2/2 impersonating the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Assam and the dissemination of purported “official communication” to the members of the public with malicious intent by the petitioner.
4. The case diary as called for has been received and perused.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has by now completed 60 days in custody.
6. In view of the above, it appears unlikely the charge sheet can be submitted before expiry of the 60 days, which is the statutory period of detention.
7. Having regard to the above as well as the nature of the allegation and the fact that the petitioner has completed 60 days behind the bar, it is directed that the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two securities of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in connection with the aforementioned case. It is provided that the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. for further investigation as and when called by the IO and shall not try to tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation of the case in any manner and shall not intimidate to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case and shall cooperate in the trial as and when trial once commences.
8. The petition stands allowed.
9. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant