Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010183282026 2026:GAU-AS:12690 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2489/2026 SADULLA ALI S/O LATE BANGSHI ALI, RESIDENT OF NEAR SAI BABA MANDIR, UDAYAN VIHAR, P.S. SATGAON, DISTRICT KAMRUP M, PIN-781027. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARMAH, B. D. KAKATI,S. J. SAHARIAH,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Bhangagarh PS Case No. 87/2026, under Section 308(2) of the BNS, 2023. Page No.# 2/3 3. The First Information Report in connection with which the petitioner was arrested and is behind the bars, was lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of GMCH, on 19.08.2026, stating, inter alia that he has received a complaint that one casualty staff member had received an amount of Rs. 1,800/- through Google Pay, on 18.08.2026, during the night hours. He, as such prayed that an FIR be lodged against the concerned person. On receipt of the FIR, the Police registered the FIR, as Bhangagarh PS Case No. 87/2026, as stated above. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged entails a punishment of less than 7 years and that the petitioner should have been given a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS, 2023, which, however, was not given according to the learned counsel. On the last occasion, an instruction was sought for from the Public Prosecutor for the State, from the Police, as to whether any notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, 2023, has been issued to the petitioner, and if not whether any justification was there with the Police authorities. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned APP has submitted that the notice under Section 35(3) was not given, but the Investigating Officer had jotted down the reasons for the same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been inside the jail since his arrest on 21.08.2026. 7. Mr B Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, Page No.# 3/3 submits that the involvement of the petitioner was seen in the video as stated in the forwarding report. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for all the parties, and, more so, there being no substantiating materials showing that the offence has been committed by the petitioner, since no reason for acceptance of money was given, this Court finds it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Kamrup (Metro), under the following conditions:- i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. 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 Investigating Officer. 7. Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant