Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010217532026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3064/2026 AFTAB UDDIN ALIAS MAINA ALI S/O. SAMSUDDIN, R/O. VILL.NADIKA. P.S. LALUK DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 01.10.2026 Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Aftab Uddin @ Maina Ali, who has been languishing in jail Page No.# 2/4 hajot since 05.09.2026, in connection with Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 174/2026, corresponding to G.R. No. 850/2026, registered under Sections 318(4)/319(2)/308(6)/308(7)/351(2)/351(3)/317(4)/112/61(2)(a)(5)/3(6)/ 3(8)/3(9) of BNS, 2023, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Satar Sing Pator, SI of Police, Bongaimara Outpost, under Bihpuria Police Station, on 05.09.2026. 4. The essence of allegation against the accused in the FIR, dated 05.09.2026, is that a band of persons possessing neither official authority nor professional qualification, have taken position in and around the precinct of Bongaimara outpost and are cheating and extorting the public under the guise of legal authority and police attachment. They have also been rendering deceitful legal advice, executing settlement deeds and habitually dealing with stolen properties. 5. Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 05.09.2026, and since then, he has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 25 (twenty five) days and that the accused is innocent and no-way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR. He also submits that the accused is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, he has contended to allow this application. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned APP for the State respondent, has opposed the application on the ground that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused, in support of the allegations made in the FIR and Page No.# 3/4 under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss this application. 7. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case diary produced before this Court by Mr. Sarma, learned APP. 8. It appears that the I.O. has collected some materials in support of the allegations made in the FIR. But, it also appears that he has achieved substantial progress in the investigation of the case. And besides, the accused has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 25 days. 9. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the period of detention of the accused in jail hajot for the last 25 (twenty five) days, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the accused seems to be unwarranted in the interest of the investigation. And accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this application. 10. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,000/-, with one surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, the accused shall be enlarged on bail. 11. In terms of the above, this Bail Application stands disposed of. 12. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant