Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010179412026 2026:GAU-AS:12445 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2449/2026 SAMSUL HAQUE S/O - HAZARAT ALI, RESIDENT OF - VILL - BADANI AKHIYA, P.S MUKALMUWA, DIST-NALBARI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM, GUWAHATI. Advocate for the Petitioner : S KAUR, MS. L BASUMATARY,L BANIK,N NEOG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 28.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. L. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner, namely, Samsul Haque has prayed for the grant of bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 56/2026 arising out of Mukalmuwa Police Station Case No. 23/2026 registered under Sections 123 and Page No.# 2/3 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari Assam. 3. The FIR, in connection with which the petitioner was arrested, was lodged on 23.02.2026 by the mother of the deceased wherein it was stated, inter alia, that her son had left home for work on 19.02.2026 and had gone to the house of the accused, namely, Mr. Rizul Ali as mentioned in the FIR. It was further stated that the deceased had tea at the house of the said accused and after consuming the tea, he started feeling unwell whereupon he was admitted to a hospital. The informant further stated that for better treatment her son was subsequently taken to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). However, during the course of treatment he succumbed to his condition and died on 20.02.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and that he was not involved in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the forwarding report also does not disclose any material against the petitioner, except for the purported statement that the petitioner had himself admitted his involvement in the alleged offence. 5. The learned counsel further submits that there has been a violation of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 inasmuch as in the notices issued under the said provisions the particulars of the alleged offence were not mentioned. It is contended that the notices merely disclosed the reasons for arrest and did not communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. 6. Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP appearing for the State on the other hand submits that during the course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence was revealed whereupon he was arrested by Page No.# 3/3 the police. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner and the other accused persons and charges have been framed and the trial is presently in progress. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and more particularly having regard to the fact that no specific material implicating the petitioner was disclosed in the forwarding report and further that the basic particulars of the alleged offence were not mentioned in the notice issued under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 as required under law and in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it fit and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari subject to the following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Court each and every date without fail, (ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case and/or influence the witnesses and (iii) the petitioner shall not leave his residence without prior permission of the Sessions Judge, Nalbari. 8. The Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant