Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11213 (GAU)

MD NUR HOQUE ALIAS NUR AHMED v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1406/2026 · 2026-07-27

Shamima Jahan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010130512026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1406/2026 MD NUR HOQUE ALIAS NUR AHMED S/O LATE MUSLIM ALI R/O SIJUBARI MAZAR P.O. HATIGAON, P.S. HATIGAON DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ISLAM, E BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 28.07.2026 Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 392/2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2308/2026 Page No.# 2/2 registered under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/3(5)/304(2)/308(4)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023. The FIR on the basis of which the petitioner was arrayed as a accused person was lodged on 16.06.2026 by the informant stating inter alia that he was called by one Mukesh Jain to have a discussion on some business matter. He further stated that before the said phone call, said Mr. Jain had handed over some articles to the informant to be transported from Guwahati to Hyderabad but since the goods were not accompanied with the valid bill, the informant could not transport them and that he returned the said articles through the petitioner. The informant further states that when he reached the place, where Mr. Jain called him, he was physically assaulted and as such, he lodged the ejahar. It is noticed that the petitioner was enlarged on interim pre arrest bail by order dated 24.06.2026 on one of the condition that he shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of seven days. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was stated to have appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded by him. This fact has been stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. As such, it is seen that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation at hand and as such, this Court deems it fit to make the order dated 24.06.2026 absolute and the petitioner is allowed to remain on pre-arrest bail. 4. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant