Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010151712026 2026:GAU-AS:13207 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1701/2026 MALEK UDDIN S/O- SHAHAR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - GASBARI, PS MAYONG, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 1 NO. KACHUTULI DIGARUPAR NC, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K AZAD, MR. J UDDIN,MR. I HUSSAIN,MR A K KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 09-09-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Ahmed for the petitioner Malek Uddin, who has filed this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for pre-arrest bail as the petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Sonapur Police Station Case No. 36/2026 under Page No.# 2/3 Sections 112/316(2)/318(4)/335(A)(ii)/336(3)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely alleged with the offence of operating mule accounts. The petitioner was helping the local people to avail the benefits of Ayushman Bharat and he is not guilty of any offence, as alleged. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. K. Das has raised serious objection, stating that the earlier order dated 23.06.2026 in connection with AB/980/2026 clearly depicts that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. He is involved in procuring the signatures and thumb impressions of innocent villagers and obtaining passport sized photographs, PAN cards and Aadhaar cards. Thereafter, the petitioner created accounts and used the accounts of the innocent villagers as mule accounts to transfer money siphoned off illegally. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not required as investigation has progressed further. The argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no new grounds or change of circumstances could be deciphered to grant anticipatory bail on the basis of this subsequent bail application, holds no water. This is a case of documentary evidence and on the statements of witnesses, relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner cannot be held liable of an offence, which he has not committed. 5. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary and the statements of the witnesses. Page No.# 3/3 6. The FIR unfolds that the petitioner and the co-accused after creating mule accounts of innocent victims, sold the bank accounts and sim cards to unknown persons. 7. It is true that this case is based solely on digital evidence, but at the same time, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, at this juncture, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail at this stage when his earlier bail was rejected. Thus, there is no change of circumstance or new grounds to grant bail to the petitioner on his subsequent application on pre- arrest bail. Statements of many witnesses have been recorded, but there is not a single instance where any of the witnesses have benefited by the petitioner’s venture to help them to avail the benefit of Ayushman Bharat. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is constrained to reject the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner at this stage. 9. Petition stands rejected. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant