Kumar Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2025)

Kumar Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: petitioner enlarged on bail of Rs 50,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, under the conditions that (1) he shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, (2) he shall appear before the I/O on every fortnight till completion of investigation, and (3) he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission; on breach of any of these conditions the Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, behind bars since 01.05.2025 in connection with Hojai PS Case No. 130/2025 under Section 316(5) of the BNS, 2023, should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

Court's answer

Further custodial detention may not be required for the progress of the investigation; considering all aspects, the Court allowed the bail petition.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs 50,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - Gauhati High Court (Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, J), 16.06.2025, Bail Appln./1718/2025. Application under S. 483 BNSS 2023 by Kumar Uddin Ahmed, in custody since 01.05.2025 (46 days) in Hojai PS Case No. 130/2025 under S. 316(5) BNS 2023 over alleged misappropriation of funds from the department and defrauding Plantation Flower Valley Agrotech Pvt. Ltd, RND Department. Petitioner a history-sheeter with earlier FIRs (admitted fact); had resigned from the company on 05.02.2024 while the FIR was lodged as late as 01.05.2025; amount misappropriated not clearly mentioned in the FIR. Additional Public Prosecutor objected for want of Case Diary (I/O on leave). Court held further custodial detention may not be required for the progress of investigation and allowed the petition: bail of Rs 50,000/- with suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Hojai, conditioned on refraining from the alleged activities, fortnightly reporting to the I/O till completion of investigation, and not leaving the Court's jurisdiction without prior permission; breach empowers cancellation of bail.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010108282025

undefined

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

Case No. : Bail Appln./1718/2025

KUMAR UDDIN AHMED SON OF HUSSAIN ALI R/O VILL- SARUCHALA P.S. MOIRABARI DIST.MORIGAON, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, Z ROHMAN,MR Z RAHMAN,MS S R KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

ORDER

Date : 16.06.2025

Heard Mr. J Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner Kamar Uddin Ahmed who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 01.05.2025 in connection with Hojai PS Case No. 130/2025 under Section 316(5) of the BNS, 2023.

Page No.# 2/3

Heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam who has raised serious objection stating that the prayer of bail cannot be proceeded without perusal of the Case Diary. He also submitted that the Case Diary could not be forwarded as the I/O is on leave.

The petitioner is a history-sheeter. There were earlier FIRs lodged against the petitioner which is an admitted fact. It is further submitted that the petitioner has misappropriated funds from the department and has defrauded Plantation Flower Valley Agrotech Pvt. Ltd, RND Department.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the amount of funds misappropriated has not been clearly mentioned in the FIR. This FIR has been lodged against the petitioner as the petitioner had earlier, on 05.02.2024, resigned from the company, whereas the FIR was lodged as late as 01.05.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner is behind bars for 46 days and further custodial detention may not be required.

I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. The petitioner has pledged to co-operate with the remaining part of the investigation and to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him. It also appears that further custodial detention may not be required for the progress of investigation. Considering all aspects, this petition is allowed.

The petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs 50,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai under the conditions that :

(1) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged.

(2) The petitioner shall appear before the I/O on every fortnight till completion of investigation, and

(3) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

Page No.# 3/3

On breach of any the aforementioned bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to

cancel the bail granted to the petitioner.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant