Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12789 (GAU)

MASHIDUR ISLAM AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1350/2026 · 2026-08-05

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010125732026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1350/2026 MASHIDUR ISLAM AND ANR S/O BOKTO ZAMAL VILL- CHAR KATDANGA PT.I, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM 2: MOMINUR ISLAM S/O BILAT ALI VILL- PATAKATA P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, MR. A KHALEK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 06.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Page No.# 2/2 Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioners, namely, 1. Mashidur Islam and 2. Mominur Islam are seeking Anticipatory Bail apprehending arrest in connection with an FIR, which is registered as South Salmara Police Station Case No. 67/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/148/336(3)/304(2)/318(4) of BNS read with Section 14 (c) of Foreigners Act, 1946. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not the FIR named accused and they are no way involved in the alleged offence and furthermore there are no ingredients of the offence of waging war against the Government of India in the FIR. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, with reference to the case diary, submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners, as they are actively involved in the transportation of illegal Bangladeshi nationals into the country. Therefore, their custodial interrogation is stated to be necessary. 5. Having regard to the submissions made above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners is rejected at this stage. 6. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail petition is disposed of. 7. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant