Gauhati High Court
AB/957/2026 of TAJ UDDIN BARBHUIYA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 3 June 2026
GAHC010087592026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/957/2026 TAJ UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O LATE MUDORISH ALI BARBHUIYAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSR/O VILLAGE SONABARIGHAT PART-I, P.O. SONABARIGHAT P.S. SONAI DISTRICT CACHAR, STATE ASSAM
GAHC010087592026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/957/2026
TAJ UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O LATE MUDORISH ALI BARBHUIYAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARSR/O
VILLAGE SONABARIGHAT PART-I, P.O. SONABARIGHAT P.S. SONAI
DISTRICT CACHAR, STATE ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS S R MAZARBHUIYA,S. M. ZINNA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, 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
Date : 04-06-2026 Heard Mr. A. M Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K Das, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State.
2. Invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner namely, Taj Uddin Barbhuiya seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 1170/2025 and Silchar P.S. Case No. 1170/2025, under Sections 125/271/316(2)/319(2)/336(2) of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1932/2025.
3. The case originates from an FIR dated 15.10.2025 lodged by Dr. Abhijit Neog, Anti-Quackery and Vigilance Officer, Assam Council of Medical Registration, under the Directorate of Medical Education, Assam. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he has been falsely projecting himself as a qualified medical practitioner and treating patients without possessing any legally recognized medical qualification. It is further alleged that the petitioner is not registered in the State or National Medical Register maintained by statutory bodies, including the Assam Council of Medical Registration, which is mandatory for any person to practice medicine or represent himself as a doctor.
4. The earlier bail petition was rejected on 30.03.2026 after perusal of the Case Diary. In the earlier bail petition, it was stated inter-alia that – “two of the witnesses have categorically stated that they know the petitioner as a practicing doctor and that he has been practicing at a medical centre. This Court is of the opinion that practicing in a scientific field such as medical science without possessing the requisite qualifications amounts to quackery and has the potential to endanger the lives and health of unsuspecting and gullible patients who may approach such persons under the belief that they are duly qualified medical practitioners”.
5. The updated Case Diary was called for and received.
6. Mr. A. M Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the petitioner denies the allegations against him that he is illegally practicing as a doctor. Referring to the annexed document, it is reiterated and submitted that he has also been appointed as a Teacher and regularized also in the said post.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional PP submits that investigation is not yet completed and the certificate purportedly belonging to the petitioner has been sent to the National Medical Council, (NMC), for verification. This is also reflected in the endorsement dated 22.03.2026 of the Case Diary.
8. In the given facts and circumstances, as investigation is also not completed, I am unable to find sufficient view grounds to take a different view in this subsequent bail petition in favour of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the instant subsequent bail petition also stands rejected at this stage.
11. Return back the Case Diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant