Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040014692026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/123/2026 Kazi Motiur Rahman Son of Kazi Mohammad Hussain, resident of Flat No.301. Park Panorama Apartment, PO and PS Dispur, Kamrup (M) District, Assam 781005 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Tojum Tao,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Techi Topu,Jambey Tsering Kee BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 10-09-2026 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. J. Tsering Kee, learned counsel for the informant. 2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely Kazi Motiur Rahman, is seeking grant of pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 165/2026 under Sections 120(B)/419/420/406/ 468/471/34 of the IPC. 3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 22-06-2026 lodged by informant Tajik Tai. It is alleged Page No.# 2/3 therein that he received a summons dated 21-08-2025 from the court of the learned CJM Lakhimpur, Assam, in connection with Laluk P.S case No. 3 of 2024. Thereafter, upon making enquiry, he was shocked to find that several documents had been prepared and used in his name, without his knowledge or consent. That, the said case pertained to one tanker truck AS-07-1316 carrying 12,000 litres of diesel from Bandardewa towards Kradaadi district, Arunachal Pradesh on 12-01-2024, whereupon it was detailed on suspicion of carrying diesel illegally. 4. It is further alleged that upon further enquiry by him, the informant came to know about a sale- deed, personal bond, zimmanama, seizure related documents, release papers and other documents, wherein his name and signatures had been used illegally. The petitioner has named the present petitioner in the FIR apart from Utpal Hazarika, Irfan Ali and unknown others, and has alleged that he has been impersonated and documents forged in his name and thereby used as genuine before Court and Police. He also alleged that an amount of Rs 50 lakhs was transferred from his firm to the account of the tanker owner without his knowledge or consent. He has alleged that the transactions and documentation were carried out at the behest of the present petitioner along with others. 5. Mr. J. Tsering Kee, the learned counsel for the informant opposes the bail, submits that the informant has been impersonated and cheated due to the alleged offences committed by the accused persons, and that the present petitioner is the main culprit. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits on behalf of the petitioner that he denies his involvement in the alleged offences and that the petitioner was merely a manager of M/s RTT Enterprises, of which the informant is the sole proprietor. It is further submitted that with regard to Itanagar PS Case No. 174/2025, he has been granted bail by the learned court below. 7. A scanned Case Diary has been received along with a status report and the bail objection. 8. I have carefully gone through the said materials. 9. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposes the bail and points out the objection put forth by the Investigating Officer (IO). 10. The I.O strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, contending that the investigation so far has revealed the present petitioner to be the mastermind at whose behest the illegal activities and alleged offences were committed —involving impersonation, cheating, and forgery of documents followed by use in court proceedings. The petitioner was also found to be involved in illegally transporting diesel in connection with which the tanker was detained. The I.O has further contended Page No.# 3/3 that materials have already been found revealing that the petitioner, along with others, is trying to destroy evidence. 11. I have given my due consideration to the materials and the contentions. 12. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not deserving of anticipatory bail, at least at this stage. 13. In such view of the matter, the instant bail petition stands rejected at this stage. 14. Return the Case Diary to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. JUDGE Comparing Assistant