Gauhati High Court
AB/357/2026 of SHOHID UDDIN MOZUMDER ALIAS SOHID UDDIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 21 June 2026
GAHC010022172026 2026:GAU-AS:9039 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/357/2026 SHOHID UDDIN MOZUMDER ALIAS SOHID UDDIN SON OF LATE ISRAIL ALI RESIDENT OF SINGRIPAR, P.O. JOYNAGAR, P.S. MURAJHAR DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010022172026
2026:GAU-AS:9039
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/357/2026
SHOHID UDDIN MOZUMDER ALIAS SOHID UDDIN
SON OF LATE ISRAIL ALI
RESIDENT OF SINGRIPAR, P.O. JOYNAGAR, P.S. MURAJHAR
DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP 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, MR. D K AGARWALA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
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
22.06.2026
Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. D. K. Agarwala, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Shohid Uddin Mozumder @ Sohid Uddin, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Murajhar P.S. Case No. 238/2025, registered under Section 61(2)/308(2)/308(7) of BNS, 2023.
3. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the subsequent bail petition the earlier petition was rejected by this Court on 17.12.2025 in AB No.2880/2025.
4. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel submits that due to the pendency of this case, the petitioner has already been suspended from the position of Gaonburah and that he is not in a position to influence investigation or manipulate documents.
5. It is also submitted referring to the earlier order, that it has to be seen from the investigation as to whether the amount of Rs.30,000/- allegedly received by the petitioner had indeed come into the account of the Id Gah committee in which case the petitioner cannot be implicated. Hence, the learned counsel prays that the second subsequent bail application be allowed.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and submitted that there are no sufficient grounds in this subsequent petition for allowing the same.
7. The case diary has been placed before this court.
8. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the informant draws attention of this Court to the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the informant objecting to the grant of bail. It is submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner about being involved in the alleged offences. It is also submitted that due to his past services as Gaonburah, still some documents remain to be seized from him.
9. I have perused the relevant materials including the case diary and considered the rival submission.
10. Perused the relevant portions of the case diary again including the investigation after the rejection of the earlier bail petition on 17-12-2025. The materials in the case diary lend support to the allegations against the petitioner. The investigation materials reveal that the accused petitioner used to demand lakhs of money in the name of demarcation of land and upon refusal to pay, he used to submit bogus objections before the Circle Officer with regard to land transactions.
11. Numerous persons joined together in filing the complaint against him whereupon the case was registered. Upon an inquiry conducted by the District Administration, he was also placed under suspension. The police stated to be looking to apprehend him but without success, whereupon application had been submitted before court for issuance of NBWA.
12. Considering the nature of the allegations and the incriminating materials revealed by the investigation, I am unable to find sufficient new grounds in the subsequent petition to take a different view in favour of the petitioner.
13. Consequently, the instant bail petition also stands rejected at this stage.
14. Return back the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant