Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010140722026 2026:GAU-AS:10081 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1892/2026 HARUN RASID AND ANR S/O LATE ABDUL HEKIM. 2: SHARIFA BEGUM ALIAS SARIFA BEGUM W/O HARUN RASID.BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL. LAHARIPAM P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 22.07.2026 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicants. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under section 483 of BNSS 2023 praying for bail of Page No.# 2/3 the accused applicant in connection with PRC No. 669/2026, arising out of Kalain P.S. Case No. 28/2026, registered under sections 140(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned CJM, Cachar at Silchar. 3. The gist of the facts leading to filing of the instant bail application is that the informant, wife of Abdul Mannan Barbhuiya, lodged an FIR alleging that on 04.03.2026 at about 3:00 PM, her husband, Abdul Mannan Barbhuiya, left for Guwahati along with some persons including the accused applicant in a Scorpio vehicle. It was alleged that after reaching Guwahati, his mobile phone was found to be switched off and he could not be contacted. In this regard, a missing entry was earlier lodged in Kalain PS. Subsequently, she received a phone call from mobile number 8974916230, wherein the caller demanded a ransom of rupees 10 lakhs for releasing her husband. 4. In view of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Kalain P.S. Case No. 28/2026 under relevant sections. And thereafter, after filing of the charge-sheet, the matter is pending for framing of charges. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants submits that the accused applicant number 2 has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. He submits that the accused applicant number 1 is in no way involved in the instant case and, in fact, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that he is already in custody for 122 days and, since charge is yet to be framed, the completion of trial will take a long time. Therefore, taking into that account, the accused applicant should be granted bail in the instant case. 6. The scanned copy of the Case Diary has been received. 7. Taking into account the materials available in the Case Diary and apart from that, as charge is yet to be framed in the instant case, this Court is not inclined to grant relief to the applicant in this case. Page No.# 3/3 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant