Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010169402026 2026:GAU-AS:11465 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/818/2026 IMTAZ RAHMAN SON OF LATE ALEYA RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 5, GOBHARDHANA ROAD, NEAR BARA MASJD, TEZPUR, SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K BAIDYA, P MAZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Bail Appln./2098/2026 IMTAZ RAHMAN SON OF LATE ALEYA RAHMAN RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 5 GOBHARDHANA ROAD NEAR BARA MASJID TEZPUR SONITPUR Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN-784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A DHAR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. D.K Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has sought for modification of the bail order dated 29.07.2026 passed in B.A No.2098/2026. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted regular bail by the said order dated 29.07.2026 but one of the condition attached with the bail order was that the petitioner should not leave the place of residence without the permission of SDJM, Udalguri. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the said case is complete and the Investigating Officer of Harisinga P.S Case Page No.# 3/5 No.16/2026 has filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Court. He submits that the petitioner is the Garden Manager and that the workers of the said garden had created problems for him to stay in the bunglow of the said Tea Estate. He, as such, submits that the petitioner had to come back to his own house which is located at Sonitpur. 4. He further states that the petitioner had to take his child and other family members for medical treatment to other places out of Sonitpur and even he had to travel to Guwahati and taking permission every time from the Court of SDJM, Udalguri was getting difficult on the part of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the condition may be changed to the effect that the petitioner will take permission while moving out of the State of Assam from the concerned Court. 6. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is settled position of law that if the bail conditions are excessive, the same can be modified to the extent permissible. 7. It is held by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions that excessive bail is no bail and if, it is noticed that one of the bail condition made in the bail order is too harsh upon the petitioner, the same can be modified so that the petitioner can remain on bail after he being released on the same. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2024) INSC 617, has held as follows : “23. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the Page No.# 4/5 excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right. As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the petitioner is experiencing a genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties. Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time, where the court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An order which would protect the person’s fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate. As to what such an order should be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case”. 9. It is seen that the said condition given in condition no. (d) in the said bail order dated 29.07.2026 has become onerous on the petitioner since it is not only difficult for him to go and take permission from the learned Court of SDJM, Udalguri, as he had left the place on being problems faced by him but he had to go to other districts so that he can take his daughter for her medical treatment as well as due to the fact he had left his bunglow situated in the Tea Estate at Udalguri and he is staying at his native place at Sonitpur. As such, this Court finds it fit that the said condition be modified. Accordingly, the condition (d) given in the order dated 29.07.2026 is modified as follows :- Page No.# 5/5 “(d) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Assam without the permission of the concerned Court”. 10. The present order will become a part of the order dated 29.07.2026. 11. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant