Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15958 (GAU)

SHAHIDUL ISLAM @ SAIDUL v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./2310/2025 · 2025-08-11

Shamima Jahan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010154512025 2025:GAU-AS:10643 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2310/2025 SHAHIDUL ISLAM @ SAIDUL S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, R/O -VILLAGE - BALIKURI, P.S.-KALGACHIYA, DIST.-BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr M U Ahmed, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 12.08.2025 Heard Mr. M.U. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Prasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS by which the petitioner has prayed for regular bail in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 270/2025 registered under Section 61(2)/318(2)/319(2/3(5) of the BNS read with Section 43/66/66(c)/66(D) of the IT Act. The FIR dated 07.04.2025 reveals that one Mustofa Kamal was apprehended and during interrogation it was found that the said person is engaged as one of the member of an organized racket supplying mule bank account for money laundering related transactions. During the further investigation, it was found out that he was engaged in transaction and communication with other persons from other places and it was also revealed that in the said racket, large number of people were involved. During further investigation, it was also revealed that the petitioner was also involved in the said offence and the petitioner was arrested on 06.06.2025. Mr. M.U. Ahmed, learned counsel submits that the mandatory period prescribed in the offences which are registered against the petitioner is 60 days under the law. He also submits that today is the 67th day of the arrest of the accused person and as such he is entitled for default bail. MR. K.K. Prasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on instruction stated that the charge sheet is not submitted in respect of the present case. In view of the same, the petitioner is therefore, entitled for default bail. As such, he is released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with 2 (two) local sureties to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM Page No.# 3/3 (SadarTezpur) under the following conditions:- 1) The petitioner should co-operate with the investigation and should appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. 2) He will not tamper with the evidence and will not approach any witnesses who had connection with the said offence. 3) He will not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without his leave. The petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant