Dismissed

Majaharul Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC16 Sept 2026Bail Appln./2558/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a bail application filed by the petitioner, Majaharul Islam, under Section 483, BNSS. The petitioner, arrested on 01.08.2026, was denied anticipatory bail earlier. He sought bail citing adequate investigation progress. The court, noting that prime accused remain at large and admissions were obtained from the petitioner, rejected the bail prayer as release may hamper the investigation process.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Petitioner remains in custody.

Majaharul Islam Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010188932026

2026:GAU-AS:13848

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2558/2026

¶6

MAJAHARUL ISLAM

¶7

S/O JAMIR ALIVILL-BHEHUGURI. RANGADORIA,P.S. MIKIRBHET, DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MR. R GHOSH,MR. C SHARMA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶14

ORDER

¶15

17.09.2026

¶16

Heard Mr. S. K. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP for the State.

¶17

The Case Diary has been received.

¶18

This is an application filed under Section 483, BNSS praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner who was arrested on 01.08.2026 in connection with Mikirbheta P.S Case No. 103/2025 u/s 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/340(2)/336(3)/316(5), BNS, r/w Section 66(C)/66(D) of Information Technology Act.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the earlier occasion the petitioner had been initially granted an interim protection of prearrest bail and had appeared before the I.O. However, on production of the Case Diary, this Court by an order dated 25.05.2026, passed in Anticipatory Bail No. 460/2026 had rejected the Anticipatory Bail petition for the petitioner. He has submitted that thereafter, the petitioner had surrendered before the I.O on 01.08.2026, and has been in custody ever since.

¶20

Today being the 48^th day of custody, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigation has progressed to quite some extent and therefore, the continued custody of the petitioner for the investigation at this time may not be further necessary.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

The learned Addl. PP has submitted that the prime accused in the matter are yet to be arrested and further, there had been recoveries from the petitioner and there is substantial evidence to show his involvement in the alleged offenses.

¶23

Having regard to the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the release of the petitioner at this stage may hamper the investigation process.

¶24

Accordingly, the prayer for bail at this stage is rejected.

¶25

Bail Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Majaharul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majaharul Islam 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