Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010196132025 2025:GAU-AS:13223 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2838/2025 MAHBUBUR RAHMAN S/O HAKIM UDDIN, R/O VILL. AND P.O. BHATKUCHI, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781314 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHATTACHARYYA, MR. K M HASSAN,MR. J A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 24-09-2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. A. Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Mahbubur Rahman who was arrested on 11.06.2025 in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 321/2025 under Page No.# 2/4 Sections 318(4)/338/313 of the BNS, 2023, read with added Sections 111(2) (b)/111(3)/111(4) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to G.R. No.2979/2025). 3. From the office note, it is seen that inspite of issuance of reminder, the scanned copy of the TCR has not yet been received by the Registry. 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel submitted in this regard that the present accused petitioner is in custody since last 108 days and hence, considering the length of detention, he may be released on bail. The other co- accused persons of the case have already granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati vide its order dated 28.08.2025. 5. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not the FIR named accused and from the prayer for adding Sections 111(2)(b)/111(3)/111(4) BNS by the I.O., it is also seen that those sections are prayed to be added in respect of other three accused persons, namely, Aminul Hoque, Shahidul Islam and Lutfar Rahman, but the name of the present accused petitioner is not available in the prayer made by the I.O. for adding those Sections, which was accordingly allowed by order dated 30.06.2025 by the learned Trial Court. 6. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that inspite of several reminders, the scanned copy of the TCR has not yet been received by the Court and hence, considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, his prayer for bail may be considered. 7. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that the prayer for adding the above referred Sections has already been made before the learned Trial Court on 30.06.2025 and accordingly, the prayer was allowed by the Page No.# 3/4 learned Trial Court. Further after adding those Sections, the case was charge sheeted on 30.08.2025 and due to non-availability of the case record, he is not in a position to submit in regards to the present status of the case as to whether the charge has already been framed against the present petitioner or not. 8. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP further submitted that from the order passed by this Court, it reveals that the allegation is very serious in nature, whereby, it is alleged that he is actively involved in the present case and he is also involved in similar kind of ATM Card swiping incidents, wherein the modus oprendi is to target the elderly persons in the ATMs and deceitfully engaging them in conversations, they swipe the victims original ATM Card with a fake one. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishy, learned Addl. PP that considering the gravity of the offence, the prayer for bail may not be considered at this stage. 9. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the annexures filed along with the petition. 10. It is seen that inspite of issuance of reminders, the learned Trial Court could not furnish the TCR before this Court. 11. It is an admitted fact that the accused petitioner is in custody since last 108 days and the case has already been charge sheeted against the present petitioner. However, in absence of the charge sheet, it cannot be held as to whether, the case has already been charge sheeted against the petitioner with added Section claiming it to be an organized crime. 12. Further, it is also seen from the prayer of the I.O. that adding of those Sections were made against three other co-accused, but name of the present petitioner is not included in the said prayer made by the I.O. Page No.# 4/4 13. So, considering all these aspects of this case, without going into the detail of the merit of the case and only considering the length of detention already undergone by the present petitioner, I find that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of trial and as such, I find it to be a fit case to grant the petitioner the privilege of bail. 14. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, with one local sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Mahbubur Rahman, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, without prior permission. 15. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant