Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010141002026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail (Cancellation)/11/2026 LILI BEGUM W/O-RAFIQUL ISLAM R/O-HATIGAON,SIJIBARI, IDGHA ROAD, P.S- HATIGAON,DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN NO- 7810038 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP,ASSAM 2:RAHIM BADSHAH S/O-RIYAZ UDDIN R/O-H/NO.33 SIJUBARI IDGAH ROAD P.S-HATIGAON DIST-KAMRUP(M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DUTTA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ANACLATAS AHMED(R2),MR H A AHMED(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 28.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State as Page No.# 2/7 well as Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. The instant application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to accused, i.e., respondent no. 2, namely, Rahim Badshah, in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 60/2026, registered under Sections 61/118(2)/271 of BNS, 2023. 3. The facts leading to filing of the instant bail cancellation application are that, the applicant filed an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Hatigaon Police Station on 04.03.2026 at about 7:00 PM, alleging that the informant's father-in-law, namely, Tafizuddin Ali, suddenly fell ill. The informant went to purchase medicine from the pharmacy, namely, Badshah Medical at Hatigaon. After some time, the owner of the pharmacy, namely, Rahim Badshah, came to her house and examined her father-in- law and advised certain treatment and administered an injection (Levipil) intravenously. It is alleged that immediately after that, her father-in-law experienced severe pain in his hand and all throughout his body. On the next day, i.e., on 05.03.2026 at about 7:30 PM, the aforesaid Rahim Badshah again came to her house and instructed his employee, namely, Atikul Islam, to administer two injections (Voveran) in the waist. Thereafter, on his advice, on 06.03.2026, the family members took the informant's father-in-law to Promed City Hospital at Vetapara, Guwahati for check-up. It is alleged that his condition did not improve and, therefore, they shifted him to Dispur Polyclinic Hospital, Guwahati, wherein he was admitted into ICU. The doctors informed the family that about 80% of his body had developed a severe infection and suspected the same due to a wrong injection given to him. On 07.03.2026, an emergency operation was performed on his hand, and despite 12 days of treatment in the ICU, his condition did not improve. Facing a severe situation, he was shifted to Nemcare Hospital, where he is currently admitted in critical condition and fighting for his life. It is alleged that the condition of the informant's father-in-law deteriorated due to wrong treatment and Page No.# 3/7 negligence by the accused, i.e., Rahim Badshah, who is not authorized to provide medical treatment. 4. On receipt of the FIR, police registered Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 60/2026, under Sections 61/118(2)/271 of BNS, 2023. Thereafter, the accused person was forwarded to judicial custody on 28.04.2026 by the police and prayed for 2 days of police remand. 5. A bail application was filed on behalf of the accused person, namely, Rahim Badshah, on the same date, i.e., 28.04.2026, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), fixed the matter on 30.04.2026 and allowed 2 days of police custody. However, on 30.04.2026, the accused person's (the respondent No. 2) bail application was allowed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), taking into consideration of the fact that the accused person was supposed to appear in the NEET examination to be held on 03.05.2026. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the accused, Rahim Badshah, is not a qualified medical practitioner, however, he has been indulging in practices of advising and treating patients. He submits that the accused person is 33 years of age and has been pretending to be a medical practitioner. On the other hand, he has procured the bail by stating that he was to take the NEET-UG examination on 03.05.2026. He submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has erred in law in granting bail to the accused person, namely, Rahim Badshah, by treating the offense to be punishable with a punishment involving less than 7 years. He submits that, in fact, Section 118(2) of BNS involves punishment with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 1 year, but which may extend to 10 years. He submits that, in the instant case, the gravity of the offense was not taken into consideration Page No.# 4/7 by the learned JFMC, Kamrup (M), and therefore, that makes the order perverse. He submits that, in view of the perversity in the order passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), the same cannot be sustained. He submits that though an application for cancellation of bail was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), vide Misc. Case No. 99/2026, the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M). In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has referred to the case of Shabeen Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. [---] of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15156 of 2024), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that bail can be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record and not looked into the gravity of the offense or impact on the society, resulting in such an order. 7. Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, however, submits that Respondent No. 2 has been falsely implicated in the instant case, and he has not misrepresented himself as a medical practitioner. Rather, he runs a pharmacy, and the injections given were of general nature. He further submits that the bail of Respondent No. 2 has been granted after due consideration of the Case Diary as well as hearing the parties involved. He submits that there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M). He submits that in the instant case, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), dated 25.06.2026 has not been challenged. Therefore, he submits that the instant application cannot be considered without considering the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 25.06.2026. He prays for rejection of the instant application for cancellation of bail. 8. This Court has also heard the learned Addl. P.P., who fairly submits that there Page No.# 5/7 is no perversity in the order passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M). 9. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, and has also considered the TCR in the instant case. 10. It is seen that, though a submission has been made that Section 118(2) of BNS, which provides for punishment with imprisonment for life, has not been taken into consideration by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), however, while passing the order dated 28.04.2026, the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M) observed that all the legal procedures required to be followed while arresting the accused person have been duly followed by the police, and thereafter, he was remanded to police custody for two days. 11. It is also seen that the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), has called for the Case Diary and fixed the case for consideration of bail on another date, i.e., on 03.04.2026, wherein after perusal of the Case Diary and taking into account the fact that the accused person had been preparing for the NEET examination which was scheduled to be held on 03.05.2026, has granted bail to the accused applicant. 12. It is also seen that the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) while rejecting the cancellation of bail in Misc. Case No. 99/2026, has duly considered the materials available before the court as well as the provisions of law. 13. The learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) has also considered the report that has been submitted by the police regarding the post-bail conduct of the accused person, and having satisfied with the conduct and cooperation of the accused person with the investigation, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer Page No.# 6/7 for cancellation of bail of Respondent No. 2. 14. This Court has also considered the materials available before it in the TCR, as well as heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 15. It is well-settled that bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. It is also settled that an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Shabeen Ahmad (supra), has held that if there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same court that has granted bail. It is also held that bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored and did not take into account the gravity of the offense or the impact on society. 16. What is discernible from the aforesaid case is that for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen, or the conduct of the accused post-grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. 17. Taking into account the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases including the aforesaid case of Shabeen Ahmad (supra), and also taking into account the fact that in the instant case, the accused person has been cooperating with the investigation and he had, in fact, taken the NEET examination in 2026, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in the instant application. Page No.# 7/7 18. Accordingly, the instant application is rejected. JUDGE Miriam Degu (SPA)