Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26878 (GAU)

SADDAM HUSSAIN ALIAS SHOHEL AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./3197/2025 · 2025-10-26

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010219422025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3197/2025 SADDAM HUSSAIN ALIAS SHOHEL AND ANR S/O- MAIN UDDIN AHMED,VILL-2 NO. DAKSHIN RANGAPANI,P.S- BOK,DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O- ASAD ALI VILL-3 NO. DAKSHIN RANGAPANI P.S BOKO DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, MR. M ALI,MR. M R Z CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 27-10-2025 Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Page No.# 2/2 This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the petitioners namely, 1. Saddam Hussain @ Shohel and 2. Saddam Hussain, on bail in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 471/2025 under Section 61(2)/318(4)/319(2) of BNS, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4515/2025. It appears that as far as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegation is that they collected ATM cards of some persons and handed over the same to the accused No.1 Md. Aslam Ansari. It is submitted that since their arrest, they spent only 47 days in custody and therefore, their further detention may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation, more particularly, since the main accused Md. Aslam Ansari, who has already granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M). This Court after hearing the counsel appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the materials available on record is of the considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioners may not be required for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present petitioners. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Elaka Magistrate, the accused petitioners named above be enlarged on bail in connection with the aforesaid case. Bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant