Allowed

Jaydul Islam and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC16 Sept 2026Bail Appln./2796/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a bail application filed on behalf of two accused persons in a cyber crime case. The petitioner's counsel argued that they were arrested after the initial ten accused and were implicated due to political rivalries, despite alleging no involvement in the offence. Although incriminating material was found in the call details, the Petitioners had spent 48 days in custody. The Court granted bail subject to a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and that the petitioners appear on each fixed date and do not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with a bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties for each, subject to undertaking to appear on dates fixed and not to tamper with evidence.

Jaydul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010202782026

2026:GAU-AS:13815

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶5

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

¶6

Case No. : Bail Appln./2796/2026

¶7

JAYDUL ISLAM AND ANR S/O ABDUL KADIR,

¶8

2: MAHIBUL ISLAM S/O ABUL KALAM BOTH ARE R/O VILL - BORBORI WARD NO. 05 P.S. LAHARIGHAT DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

B E F O R E

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

17.09.2026

¶17

Heard Mr. S K Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also

¶18

heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for the grant of bail to the petitioners, namely, Jaydul Islam and Mahibul Islam, in connection with Moibari P.S Case No. 82/2026 under Section 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/95/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 66(C)/66(D) of the Information and Technology Act.

¶21

3. The petitioners were arrested on 01.08.2026 and since then they have been under custody.

¶22

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegations relating to cyber crimes have been made in the FIR dated 30.07.2026, however, the petitioners herein are not among of the ten named accused persons and they were arrested during investigation soon after the FIR. It is also contended that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged offences and that they have also been implicated due to some political rivalries.

¶23

5. The earlier bail application in respect of the present petitioner was rejected vide order dated 02.09.2026 in Bail Appln. 2400/2026.

¶24

6. Upon perusal of the CD, it appears that incriminating material is available therein. However, the petitioner has spent 48 days in custody.

¶25

7. Having regard to the above, the prayer for bail is allowed on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of the

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Morigaon, Assam.

¶28

8. It is provided herein that the petitioners shall appear before the learned

¶29

trial Court on each date fixed in the case and shall not tamper with the evidence

¶30

or influence any witness.

¶31

9. The bail petition stands disposed of as allowed.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Jaydul Islam and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaydul Islam and Anr. 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