Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010146982026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1664/2026 MONJIRUL ISLAM ALIAS MANJIRUL S/O NADRUL ISLAM, R/O VILL GOROIMARI, PO GAGALMARI, PS MAYONG, DIST MORIGAON, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SEA BREAM RESTAURANT THAMARASSERY, DIST CALICUT, KERALA VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:MALEK S/O ABDUL KHALEK R/O VILL KADAMTOLI PO TOPATOLI PS KHETRI DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN 78240 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA, MS. S KAKATI,MR. S BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. T PARASAR(AMICUS CURIAE) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 25.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent Page No.# 2/3 No. 1. Also heard Ms. T. Parashar, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. The issue involved in this petition, as contended by the learned APP, is that the present petition would not be maintainable under Section 482(4) of the BNSS that when the allegation of committing offence under Section 65 or sub- section (2) of Section 70 of BNS, 2023 is allege in the present case. 3. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the case of Nazir Hussain and 3 others Vs. State of Assam (AB No. 446/2025), this Court by order dated o2.06. 2025 has held as follows: “28. In view of the above discussion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected and it is hereby held that the embargo of Section 482(4) of BNSS would apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under Section 65 or sub-section (2) of Section 70 of BNS, 2023.” 4. He further submits that even after holding of such decision, the court had to gone ahead to consider the merits of the petition and reject the same on merits. 5. The learned APP has submitted that such rejection would of no consequence, as ultimate decision of the court was that anticipatory bail petition in the present nature would be barred in law. 6. Ms. Parashar, learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted in support of the contention raised by the learned APP. 7. I do not find any reason to differ the findings of the coordinate Bench, as observed herein above. In my considered opinion, this anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable in law and accordingly, the same is closed. Page No.# 3/3 8. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such other remedy, if it is available in law. 9. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant