Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010149452026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2003/2026 JAMAL UDDIN SON OF LATE TORMUS ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHARING PATHAR, P.S. MURAJHAR, DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, MS N SULTANA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 05.08.2026 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/3 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby the petitioner, Jamal Uddin has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested on 01.07.2026 in connection with Murajhar Police Case No. 123/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/340(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 12(1)(b)(d) (e)/12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967. 3. The allegations as discernable from the FIR is that the present petitioner, Jamal Uddin had used documents pertaining to one Abdul Majid, who is the Uncle of the petitioner for obtaining a passport, which he subsequently used to travel to Saudi Arabia. 4. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate submits that the arrest of the petitioner has been effected without complying with the provisions of Section 35 of the BNSS in violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar –Vs- State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil –Vs- Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 81 . 5. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the forwarding report, where the purported reasons for not issuing notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS to the petitioner have been stated. The reasons have been stated to be that the arrest of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation of the case and for preventing the petitioner from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear, or tempering with such evidence, or prevent the petitioner from making any inducement, threat etc to any person acquainted with facts of the case and the light. 6. The aforesaid are general grounds and do not meet the requirements of Page No.# 3/3 the Section 35 (3) of BNSS. The law in this regard have been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra). 7. The considered opinion of this Court that the aforesaid reasons stated by the I/O in the forwarding report do not amount to sufficient compliance with Section 35(1)(b) BNSS, as explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions. 8. Considering the above, and further taking into account that the petitioner has remained behind bars for 35 days and that the Investigating Officer (I/O) has had sufficient opportunity to interrogate the petitioner while in police custody, the prayer for bail is allowed. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on a bail bond of ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in connection with Murajhar Police Case No. 123/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/340(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 12(1)(b) (d)(e)/12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967. 10. Send back the case dairy. 11. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant