Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2319/2026 of MOKTAR HUSSAIN SHEIKH AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 30 August 2026
GAHC010169062026 2026:GAU-AS:12566 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2319/2026 MOKTAR HUSSAIN SHEIKH AND ANR S/O FOYAZ UDDIN SHEIKH, VILL. BHAJANTIPUR PART I, P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. 2: ABUL HUSSAIN SHEIKH S/O
GAHC010169062026
2026:GAU-AS:12566
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2319/2026
MOKTAR HUSSAIN SHEIKH AND ANR
S/O FOYAZ UDDIN SHEIKH, VILL. BHAJANTIPUR PART I, P.S. AND DIST.
HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
2: ABUL HUSSAIN SHEIKH
S/O FOYAZ UDDIN SHEIKH
VILL. BHAJANTIPUR PART I
P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, S. M. ZINNA,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA
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
31.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS , 2023 praying for regular bail of the accused/petitioners who were arrested on 04.03.2026 in connection with Session Case No. 77/2026, arising out of Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 32/2026 under Section 103(1)/115(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The allegations against the petitioners, as reflected in the FIR, inter alia, are that on the morning of 04.03.2026, the accused persons came to the house of the informant and initiated a quarrel. In the course of the quarrel, accused/petitioner No. 1 allegedly inflicted a dagger blow to the chest of the informant’s father and thereafter assaulted the informant and his younger brother, both of whom sustained injuries. The informant’s father was taken to the hospital, but succumbed to his injuries on the way.
4. The trial of the case has commenced, and one prosecution witness (PW), who is the informant has been examined. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the said PW has squarely implicated the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, having regard to the length of detention of about 182 days, the prayer for bail may be considered.
5. On perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court dated
29.08.2026, by which the prayer for bail of the petitioners was rejected, it is indicated that the learned trial Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners prior to the examination of the material witnesses of the case. By the same order, one of the co-accused was granted bail considering his old age. A subsequent bail application was also rejected by an order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the learned trial Court, keeping in view the gravity and nature of the offence.
6. Having regard to the fact that only one material PW has been examined, the potential risk of influencing or intimidating witnesses by the petitioners, and the gravity of the offence, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage.
7. The bail petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant