Allowed

Imran Ali v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026AB/2109/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under various sections of the BNS, 2023, on furnishing a bail bond and undertaking specific conditions regarding court attendance and witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties and specific undertakings to appear, not tamper with evidence, and not leave residence without permission.

Imran Ali Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010188662026

2026:GAU-AS:13647

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/2109/2026

¶6

IMRAN ALI

¶7

S/O AKASH ALI, R/O DHARAMNALA, P.S DIPHU, DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, S KHATOON

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

15.09.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶16

By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Diphu PS Case No. 75/2026, under Sections 126(2)/ 117(2)/ 109/303(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

The First Information Report in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest, was lodged on 19.08.2026, by the informant stating inter alia, that when he went to the market on 18^th of August, 2026, at around 10:30 pm, the petitioner along with others assaulted him from behind and threw him in the river. It was further stated that the informant asked for help from the shopkeeper, but the shopkeeper did not help him. It was also stated that he discovered that his wallet and mobile phone were missing.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story narrated in the FIR is a concocted story and he states that the informant had actually gone to a shop to get a bottle of water and when the shopkeeper did not give him as he was closing the shop, there was a tussle between the informant and the shopkeeper and that the petitioner interfered in the said tussle.

¶20

Mr B Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits on perusal of the Case Diary that injuries were found on the body of the informant and that the informant had stated clearly that he was assaulted by the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also placed the statement of the shopkeeper, who had stated that the informant came to his shop to take a bottle of water and when he gave him the petitioner and others have attacked.

¶21

Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel, more so, in view of the fact that there was a tussle between two groups and that the injuries are sustained by both the groups, this Court deems it fit that the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with one local surety each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, under the following conditions:-

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 (ten) days from the date of the order;

¶24

ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witnesses; and

¶25

iii) the petitioner shall not leave his residence without prior permission of the Investigating Officer.

¶26

Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶27

Send back the Case Diary.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Imran Ali v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Ali 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