Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./266/2026 of MONUJ BHAKTA AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 22 February 2026
GAHC010013502026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./266/2026 MONUJ BHAKTA AND ANR S/O RANJIT KUMAR BHAKTA R/O - ASHRAM ROAD WARD NO -15 P.S AND DIST - HAILAKANDI ASSAM 2: MITHUN BHAKTA S/O RANJIT KUMAR BHAKTA R/O - ASHRAM
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010013502026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./266/2026
MONUJ BHAKTA AND ANR
S/O RANJIT KUMAR BHAKTA
R/O - ASHRAM ROAD
WARD NO -15
P.S AND DIST - HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
2: MITHUN BHAKTA
S/O RANJIT KUMAR BHAKTA
R/O - ASHRAM ROAD
WARD NO -15 P.S AND DIST - HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. J LASKAR
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE 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
23.02.2026 Heard Mr J Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/2
2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, has been filed praying for granting bail to the petitioners, namely-(1) Monuj Bhakta, and (2) Mithun Bhakta, who are in jail since 30.12.205, in connection with R K Nagar PS Case No. 88/2025, under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had attempted to forge certain documents to facilitate loans.
4. The Case Diary till date has been perused and it is seen that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary since the forged documents etc. had already been seized.
5. The petitioners have already completed 55 days in custody.
6. In view of the prolonged incarceration, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners named above, can be allowed to go on bail, if not wanted in any other case, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi.
7. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not indulge themselves in similar activities in future and they shall participate during the investigation process as and when required.
8. The prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail.
9. Bail Application, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant