Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010178552026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2405/2026 MD ANUWAR HUSSAIN ALIAS ANUWAR HUSSAIN , S/O ABUL KASHEM, R/O VILLAGE LALI PATHAR, P.S. DHING, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782123 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S RAHMAN, MR A N IQBAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. AN Iqbal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 07/2026 registered under Section 61(2)/316(3)/318(3)/336(3)/338/341(1) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection Page No.# 2/3 with which the petitioner was arrested and is incarcerated for the last 54 days was lodged on 14.07.2026 by the eight complainants stating inter alia that they had appeared in the selection for recruitment in Assam Rifles on compassionate ground but they were not successful and that later they came in contact with the petitioner, who had assured them that he can arrange jobs for them in the Assam Rifles. It was further stated that the petitioner took Rs. 3,50,000/- from each of the complainant and had given appointment letters to them but it was found out later that the said appointment letter was fake. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not entirely responsible for the said offence and that there was another two persons who had used him for the said offence. 4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on perusal of the Case Diary submits that all the complainants had implicated the petitioner to have assured them for jobs and of taking money from them by online transfer. He further stated that the petitioner was interrogated and the petitioner had although named two other persons of their involvement in the offence but the phone numbers that the petitioner gave to the police personnel could not be tracked. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that the petitioner was inside the jail for 54 days and that his interrogation is also over and that two other offenders are yet to be found out, 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, Kamrup(M), under the following conditions: Page No.# 3/3 i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. iii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iv) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the concerned Court. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant