Mohammad Tahzeeb Vs the State of Assam — Mining and Natural Resources | Gauhati HC (2026)

Mohammad Tahzeeb Vs the State of Assam — Mining and Natural Resources | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail made absolute on the same terms and conditions as the interim order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench, subject to the direction that the original documents relating to the seized coal be produced before the Investigating Officer within 15 days.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Mohammad Tahzeeb, apprehending arrest in Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 32/2024, should be granted pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Court's answer

Taking into account the fact that the accused-applicant has already been cooperating with the investigation, this Court was of the opinion that the interim bail passed earlier (order dated 30.10.2025) should be made absolute.

Ratio / Principle

The interim order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2025 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions provided therein.

Key takeaways

Direction that the original documents relating to the seized coal shall be produced by the accused-applicant before the Investigating Officer within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the order.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Mohammad Tahzeeb, fearing arrest in Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 32/2024 (Section 379 IPC r/w Section 4(1)(A) & 21, Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957, and r/w Section 3, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984), arising from FIR dated 09.07.2024 lodged by a senior geologist, Directorate of Geology & Mining, Dibrugarh, over information of seizure of coals and concealment of coal depots in Margherita sub-division — Counsel for applicant contended his name is not mentioned in the FIR; prosecution submitted the applicant is the owner of the seized coal — Earlier interim custody of the seized coal was refused; status quo order dated 28.07.2025 in connected Criminal Petition No. 888/2025 — Court took into account that the applicant has been cooperating with the investigation — Interim bail order dated 30.10.2025 of the Co-Ordinate Bench made absolute on the same terms and conditions — Original documents relating to the seized coal directed to be produced before the Investigating Officer within 15 days — AB application disposed of as allowed (order dated 11.02.2026, Anjan Moni Kalita, J.).

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010232162025

2026:GAU-AS:1922

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

Case No. : AB/2545/2025

MOHAMMAD TAHZEEB

S/O MOHAMMAD MOTIUR RAHMAN R/O TIPONG, P.S. LEKHAPANI, CODISTRICT- MARGHERITADIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM- 786182

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR H AGARWAL,MR J SINGH,MS S JAIN,MS M ZOMUANPUII,MRS J M KONWAR

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

11.02.2026

Heard Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the accused – applicant. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Page No.# 2/3

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused – applicant, namely, Mohammad Tahzeeb, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 32/2024 under Section 379 IPC r/w Section 4(1)(A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and r/w Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The case arose out of an FIR dated 09.07.2024 lodged by one senior geologist in the office of the Resident Geologist, Directorate of Geology & Mining, Dibrugarh. It is stated that some information about seizure of coals and concealing of coal depots in Margherita sub-division and in this regard, the instant FIR has been lodged for further investigation of the case.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused – applicant that the name of the accused – applicant is not mentioned in the FIR.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the accused – applicant is the owner of the coal which is stated to have been seized.

The learned counsel appearing for the accused – applicant has drawn my attention to the annexed documents and the accused – applicant has sought interim custody of the seized coal which, however, was refused and to prevent the possibility of auction, a criminal petition has been filed registered as Criminal Petition No. 888/2025 and vide order dated 28.07.2025, status quo order has been passed.

It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the original documents relating to seized coal are yet to be produced by the accused – applicant before the I.O.

After taking into account of the fact that the accused – applicant has already been cooperating with the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that

Page No.# 3/3

the interim bail so passed earlier, vide order dated 30.10.2025 should be made absolute. Accordingly, the interim order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.10.2025 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions provided therein. However, it is directed that the original documents relating to the seized coal shall be produced by the accused – applicant before the Investigating Officer within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the instant order.

In view of the aforesaid directions, this AB application stands disposed of as allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant