Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010113382025 2025:GAU-AS:7948 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1805/2025 ENAMUL HOQUE S/O- EUNUS ALI. R/O- VILL.- K-ATAKATA, P.S.- DHULA, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD, PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED, A. ALI,N. CHOUDHURY,A. K. KANU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 16.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Enamul Hoque, who has been behind the bars since 17.05.2025, in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Dalgaon P.S. Case No. 90/2025, under Section 309(6) of BNS, 2023. 3. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lakhar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 4. The allegations against the petitioner is that he was involved in committing dacoity and looting an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- from the informant, Amir Hussain with the assistance of Meherul Islam and other accused. 5. It is pertinent to note that Meherul Islam, who was pretending to be the informant’s friend was sitting in the same vehicle, as the informant. This vehicle was driven by Meherul Islam in an isolated place and in the pretext of getting down to answer natures call. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not involved in the incident. The petitioner’s name is not mentioned in the FIR. 7. It is further submitted that the incident occurred on 02.05.2025 and the FIR was lodged after two(2) weeks, i.e. on 16.05.2025. No reason of delay has been explained by the informant, while lodging the belated FIR. There was sufficient ground to falsely implicate and fabricate the FIR, as the informant owed some money to the accused Meherul Islam. A false case has been brought up against the accused Meherul Islam and the petitioner. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised Page No.# 3/3 serious objections stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. 9. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Investigation is still under progress. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. 10. I have considered the gravity of the offence. At this juncture, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 11. Considering all aspects, petition is rejected at this stage. 12. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant