Allowed

Rahul Ali Alias Rinku Ali v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2026Bail Appln./2474/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 483 BNSS filed by an accused held in custody for 54 days in connection with an assault case involving grievous injuries. The court noted that investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been submitted. Considering the prolonged detention and lack of further need for custody for investigation, the court dismissed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Allow bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta.

Rahul Ali Alias Rinku Ali Vs the State of Assam — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010178022026

2026:GAU-AS:13902

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2474/2026

¶6

RAHUL ALI ALIAS RINKU ALI

¶7

SON OF LATE MOKTAB ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADHULIJHAR, P.S. SORBHOG, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781317.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A U CHOUDHURY, MS. A KAUSHAR,MR S ISLAM

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

18.09.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶16

2. This application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by accused, namely, Rahul Ali @ Rinku Ali ,

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

who has been languishing in jail hajot since 27.07.2026, in connection with Sorbhog P.S. Case No. 89/2026, under Sections 109(1)/117(2)/118(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023; for grant of bail.

¶19

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Atikur Rahman on 24.07.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR, dated 24.07.2026, is that on 24.07.2026, at about 8:15 PM, while one Babul Ali, brother of the informant, while returning from Chakchaka bazaar, then in front of Chakchaka Govt. M.V. School, the present accused and one Munna Ali, have assaulted him with a sharp object, with a view to kill him and caused injuries over his stomach, his hands and over his feet and injured him seriously.

¶20

4. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 54 days and in fact, the accused is also a victim in this case and he has also sustained injuries in the aforesaid incident. He also submits that after completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet in this case, and that the accused is ready to face trial and will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date and therefore, the has contended to allow this application.

¶21

5. Per contra, Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP, submits that the injury report of one Babul Ali is not available in the scanned copy of the record, received from the learned Trial Court. What is available in the record is the injury report of one Abdul Latif, and as per the said injury report, the injuries sustained by said Abdul Latif are grievous in nature.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also gone through the scanned copy of the records received from the learned Trial Court.

¶24

7. Considering the period of detention of the petitioner in custody for the last 54 days and also considering the fact that investigation of the case has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been submitted by the I.O., this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the accused seems to be unwarranted in the interest of investigation. And accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this application.

¶25

8. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, the accused shall be enlarged on bail.

¶26

9. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Rahul Ali Alias Rinku Ali v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Ali Alias Rinku 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