Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010189962026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2577/2026 RASHEEQ RAHMAN S/O MAZIBUR RAHMAN @ MAJIBUR RAHMAN R/O HOUSE NO. 53, SIJUBARI KHANKA ROAD, P.O. HATIGAON, P.S. HATIGOAN, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ISLAM, E BEGUM,MR. B I KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 326/2026 registered under Sections 281/324(4) Page No.# 2/3 (5)/117(2)/296/109(1)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested on 28.08.2026 was lodged by the victim stating inter alia that on 25.08.2026 at around 07:30 am, when he along with his son was coming by the vehicle from Saukuchi to Guwahati, another vehicle, which was driven in a very high speed caused damage to their car at the time of overtaking and that the informant and his son chased the said vehicle and stopped the same and thereafter, when they got down from the vehicle to settle the matter politely, the driver as well as the passenger of the other car assaulted his son causing grievous hurt. It was also stated that another person came at that juncture and injured his seen. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant and his son had chased the vehicle driven by the petitioner and stopped and at first, it was the informant and his son who had started the tussle with the occupant of the other car and in the tussle both sides got injured. He further submits that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause hurt on the informant's son. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on perusal of the Case Diary submits that the injury on the informant's son is grievous and that his nasal bond was found to be fractured. He also placed the statement of the victim, who had stated that both the occupants of the vehicle had injured him. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that it is not discernible as to who had actually assaulted the informant's son, 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