Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010201982026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2787/2026 RABIAL HUSSAIN S/O AKMAT ALI, VILLAGE PALHAZI, P.S. BARPETA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MISS. S PARBIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has sought for bail in connection with Barpeta PS Case No. 336/2026 registered under Sections61(2)/308(6)/308(7)/318(4)/319(2)/112(1)/112(2)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, Page No.# 2/3 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested on 09.09.2026 was lodged by the police personnel of Barpeta Police Station stating inter alia that a group of persons having no authority and possessing no professional qualifications have entrenched themselves in and around the police station and had engaged in illegal activities such as luring the people who come to the police station in filing the FIR or reaching the settlement amongst the parties. It is also alleged that the said group use to give advice to the said persons and take money from them. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and during the investigation of the aforesaid case, the petitioner was arrested. He submits that there are no specific allegations neither in the FIR nor in the forwarding report and that only omnibus allegations are made against them. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the petitioner along with others are involved in various illegal activities as stated in the FIR and has prayed for calling of the Case Diary. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that no specific allegation is made against the petitioner neither any person has been mentioned to have been victimized by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Barpeta, under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. Page No.# 3/3 ii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the concerned Court. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant