Gauhati High Court
AB/460/2026 of MAJAHARUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 24 May 2026
GAHC010041762026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/460/2026 MAJAHARUL ISLAM S/O JAMIR ALI R/O 116, VILL- BHEHUGURI, P.O. SILPUKHURI, P.S. MIKIRBHETA DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
GAHC010041762026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/460/2026
MAJAHARUL ISLAM
S/O JAMIR ALI
R/O 116, VILL- BHEHUGURI, P.O. SILPUKHURI, P.S. MIKIRBHETA
DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MISS. P M
AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY
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
Date : 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K Das, learned Addl. P.P for the State.
2. This is the second bail petition under Section 482 of the BNSS 2023, in connection with Mikirbheta P.S Case No.103/2025 under Section 61 (2)/ 319 (2)/ 318(4)/ 340 (2)/ 336(3)/ 316(5) of BNS read with Section 66 (C)/ 66(D) of IT Act.
3. The earlier prayer for the grant of privilege of pre-arrest bail had been rejected by an order dated 22.01.2026. By an order dated 23.03.2026, this Court had granted an interim protection to the petitioner, allowing him to appear before the investigating officer.
4. The learned Addl. P.P. has produced the case diary and has submitted that there are enough materials available after interrogation of the other co- accused who were arrested as well as the petitioner that a custodial interrogation of the petitioner would assist in the investigation of the case.
5. We have also perused the materials relied upon by the learned Addl. P.P. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that statements/confession of a co-accused cannot be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even for granting a regular bail has also been taken note of.
6. The Apex Court has held that there should be other materials which could be relied upon before such a confession is taken into account.
7. In the present case, we find that there are material recoveries and the investigating authority has been trying to trace out a cyber network operation, which led to the siphoning of substantial amounts from unsuspecting victims etc.
8. In the present circumstances, we are not of the opinion that the petitioner can be allowed the privilege to continue with the privilege of a pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the same is recalled.
5. Accordingly, this bail petition is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant