Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23990 (GAU)

ABDUS SALAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./3563/2025 · 2025-11-17

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010241542025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3563/2025 ABDUS SALAM S/O TOTA MIYA R/O VILL MAJORTOP, P.S. GOROIMARI, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN 782104 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 18.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P for the State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, seeking bail of the petitioner, namely, Abdus Salam, in connection with Goroimari P.S. Case No. 94/2025 under Sections 191(3)/176/308(5)/109/118(2)/303(2) of BNS, Page No.# 2/2 2023. 3. The allegations as per the FIR is that a group of persons as named in the FIR intercepted the vehicle of the informant in which he was carrying six nos. of cattle and demanded of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him and also assaulted his companion causing cut injury on his hand and the assailants also extracted of Rs.10,000/- from the informant and also attempted to take away the cattles from his vehicle, but were prevented from doing so by the arrival of the local people on the spot and except the accused No.4, the rest fled away. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of political rivalry. But no specific of such political rivalry has been stated in the petition. 5. On perusal of the case diary it is submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the injured person has clearly implicated the present petitioner as part of the group of five persons which was involved in the alleged offence of attempted dacoity as well as extortion. 6. Having regard to the above, the gravity of the offence and the material available in the case diary, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. 7. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant