Disposed

Ismail Hussain v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC1 Sept 2025AB/1313/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS in a forgery and conspiracy case. The court noted the petitioner had already recorded his statement and was cooperating with investigation, and made the interim pre-arrest bail order absolute subject to conditions including cooperation, non-tampering with evidence, and not leaving his residence without permission.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail order dated 11.06.2025 made absolute, subject to conditions of cooperation, non-tampering, and not leaving residence without permission.

Ismail Hussain Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010125822025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : AB/1313/2025

¶6

ISMAIL HUSSAIN S/O- ABDUL AZIZ. R/O- SANTI NAGAR, WARD NO.9, P.O.- BARPETA ROAD, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.PIN-781315

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MR. S RAHMAN

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶12

ORDER

¶13

02.09.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. S. M. Abdullah P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State.

¶15

By this application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 the

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

petitioner, viz., Ismail Hussain has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Tamulpur Police Station Case No.94/2024 registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of the BNS, 2023.

¶18

The F.I.R. dated 14.05.2024 reflects that the informant after being transferred to another place came to know that his signature was forged and appointment letters were issued in his name by hatching a serious conspiracy to malign his image. On the basis of the said information the police conducted investigation and during the investigation the petitioner’s name surfaced and the police issued notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

¶19

Mr. S. M. Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was called by the police and he went and given his statement and the same was recorded and that the petitioner, who is working as an UDA in the said office of the ICDS, is not involved in the said offence. Mr. Abdullah also submits that the petitioner was granted interim pre-arrest bail on 11.06.2025 and that in pursuant to the same the petitioner had gone to the Investigating Officer and had submitted the said interim order but the I.O. did not record the statement of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s statement was already recorded before the interim order was passed.

¶20

Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the statement of the petitioner finds place in the Case Diary and that the interim order is also present in the same. However, he submits that there is no further statement of the petitioner after the interim order. The learned Addl. P.P., however, submits that

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

there are enough materials against the petitioner and as such he objected to the grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶23

On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it is found that the petitioner had already got his statement recorded by the I.O. before the interim order and as such, it is noticed that he is cooperating with the investigation.

¶24

In view of the above, the interim order dated 11.06.2025 is hereby made absolute with the further direction that :-

¶25

(1) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶26

(2) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not influence the witnesses connected with the case.

¶27

(3) That the petitioner shall not leave the place of his residence without permission of the arresting authority.

¶28

The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Ismail Hussain v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail Hussain v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Md. Jiaruddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Md. Jiaruddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Deepjyoti Baishya Vs the State of Assam

Mamuni Khatun Alias Shorifa Khatun Vs the State of Assam

Madan Biswas and Anr. Vs the State of Assam