Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25360 (GAU)

MD SAMSUL HAQUE v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2658/2025 · 2025-11-24

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010248432025 2025:GAU-AS:16015 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2658/2025 MD SAMSUL HAQUE SON OF SIDDIQUE ALI AHMED, R/O VILL- TITKURI P.O. TITKURI, P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781354 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, MS A HUSSAIN,SABRISH AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 25.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Darak Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/2 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Md. Samsul Haque, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S Case No. 251/2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/308(2)/316(5) of BNS,2023. 3. It appears from the FIR that certain allegations were made against the petitioner of being involved in collecting money from beneficiaries of Awaas Plus 2024 survey conducted at the Loch Gaon Panchayat. The said FIR was lodged by the Chief Executive Officer, Kamrup, Zilla Parishad, pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer as well and in the said enquiry, two of the witnesses had implicated the present petitioner as having demanded and received bribes. 4. On perusal of the case diary, the victims have implicated the present petitioner of having demanded and secured bribes in connection with the aforesaid scheme. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid material and the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant