Gauhati High Court
AB/527/2026 of SHAHIL ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 19 April 2026
GAHC010049032026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/527/2026 SHAHIL ALI S/O MAMAT ALI R/O SATGAON AMBARI, UDAYAN VIHAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781171. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010049032026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/527/2026
SHAHIL ALI
S/O MAMAT ALI
R/O SATGAON AMBARI, UDAYAN VIHAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-
781171.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B M DEKA, MS. D BORA,MR. MASUM ALAM
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 : 20.04.2026 Heard Mr. Masum Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Kaushik, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Perused the case diary.
3. As recorded in the order dated 12.03.2026, a submission had been made that there was another Page No.# 2/2 person with the same name, who had already been arrested in connection with Satgaon P.S. Case No. 37/2026 under Section 127 (2)/ 308 (2)/ 117 (2)/ 3 (5) of BNS 2023 and the petitioner having the same name, was being wrongly searched by the police. Accordingly, this Court had allowed an interim protection to the petitioner herein since he was not named in the FIR, and another accused person with the same name had already been arrested. The petitioner appeared before the I.O. in accordance with the directions of this Court. Learned Addl. P P has produced the case diary.
4. Perusal of the case diary shows that two persons by the same name, including the petitioner, were involved in the incident, and the other co-accused, who were in custody, have named the present applicant also as a perpetrator of the alleged offence.
5. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to recall the privilege of previous bail granted to the petitioner. The looted items are yet to be recovered.
6. Accordingly, the previous bail is recalled, and the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant