Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010115512026 2026:GAU-AS:12394 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1539/2026 REZZAK ALI AND ANR S/O SUKKUR ALI, R/O VILL SUAPATA PT IV, PO AND PS BILASIPARA, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783348 2: SAMIUL HOQUE ALIAS SAMIYAL HOQUE S/O SUKKUR ALI R/O VILL SUAPATA PT IV PO AND PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78334 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ISLAM, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS. S ROY BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 28-08-2026 Page No.# 2/5 Heard Mr. T J Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Ms. B Hazarika appearing on behalf of Ms. S Roy, the learned counsel for the informant/respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioners, namely, [1] Rezzak Ali and [2] Samiul Hoque are behind the bars since 03.03.2026 and 30.03.2026 respectively in connection with Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 59/2026 u/s 61(2)/318(2)/109(2) and later added Section 103(2) of BNS Act. 3. Scanned TCR along with Case Diary has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present two accused/petitioners are behind the bars since last 177 and 150 days respectively and the other co-accused/persons are already granted bail by this Court and the learned Trial Court below. He further submitted that earlier one bail application was moved by these two petitioners along with another. But, considering the materials in the Case Diary the prayer was rejected. However, the prayer for one petitioner was considered on the length of detention. But, by the time the case has already been charge-sheeted dated 20.05.2026 and the case is at the state of committal. He further submitted that six persons were already charge-sheeted in the present case out of which four persons are already been granted bail and considering the ground of parity also the prayer should be considered. The case is not yet committed and hence commencement of trial within a short period cannot be expected at this stage. However, all the petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the learned Page No.# 3/5 Trial Court below on each and every date to be fixed by the Court and to face the trial. 5. Mr. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against all the accused/persons including these two petitioners wherein they are also involved in commission of offence and took active part. He further submitted that their bail petition was earlier rejected considering the materials on record. However, prayer for one petitioner was granted only considering length of detention. But, as the case has already been charge-sheeted, the period of detention may not be considered at this stage. 6. Ms. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing for the informant raised vehement objection and submitted that the informant side is still getting threatening by some persons engaged by these petitioners and the witnesses are being threatened and hence they have already filed a bail cancellation application for cancellation of bail of the other accused/persons who were already granted bail by this Court. Accordingly, she submitted that bail prayer of the present petitioners may not be considered at this stage. 7. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record. It is a fact that the I/O has collected sufficient materials against all the accused/persons and on the basis of which a case has already been charge-sheeted against the 6 nos. of accused/persons. It is a fact that one accused/person was granted bail by this Court considering the length of detention. However, prayer for these two petitioners were already been rejected considering the materials in the Case Diary. But, considering the submission made learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mahanta it is seen that out of 6 nos. of accused/persons, 4 accused/persons were already granted bal Page No.# 4/5 by this Court as well as the learned Trial Court below. It is also seen that the case of the present petitioners also stand in the same footing along with other co-accused/persons. But, the learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the petitioners by engaging some persons are still threatening the witnesses which may hamper the trial for the present case. But, there is no mention as to how these two petitioners herein had threatened the witnesses as they are still behind the bars. However, their bail may be cancelled at any stage if these two petitioners also violate the condition of bail. But, considering the other aspect of the case, vis-à-vis the ground of parity and also considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention may not be necessary for the purpose of trial. In view of this, these two petitioners are hereby allowed to go on bail. 8. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Bilasipara. The accused/petitioners, namely [1] Rezzak Ali and [2] Samiul Hoque, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (ii) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned SDJM, Bilasipara without prior permission. Page No.# 5/5 The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant