Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17414 (GAU)

SALIM UDDIN AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/3038/2025 · 2026-01-05

Pranjal Das

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010283382025 2026:GAU-AS:164 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3038/2025 SALIM UDDIN AND ANR S/O ANJIR ALI, R/O LAKHIPUR PT 1, PO KALAIN, PS KATIGORAH, DIST CACHAR, STATE ASSAM 2: HUSSAIN AHMED S/O SAMSUDDIN R/O TARAPUR PS KATIGORAH PIN 788815 DIST CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR K THAKUR,MR. A HUDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 06.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Page No.# 2/3 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioners, namely, Salim Uddin and Hussain Ahmed, apprehending arrest in connection with Changsari P.S. Case No. 201/2025 registered u/s 303(2)/317(2) of BNS. 3. Earlier bail application was rejected by this Court on 12.12.2025 in AB 2870. 4. The case arose out of the FIR dated 10.10.2025. The gist of the allegation is that two trucks bearing Registration Nos. TR03-M-1618 and NL-01-AE-0551 were found parked near Brahmaputra Industrial Park, Gauripur and upon search, suspected Areca Nuts belief to be of Burmese origin in large quantity were found in a hidden compartments in the roofs of both the trucks. 5. It is alleged that those are stolen materials and being transported illegally. 6. Case diary has called for has been received. 7. Investigation is stated to be still in progress and FSL report is received. The driver and handyman of the trucks are stated to be still absconding. I have noticed the narration in para. 7 and 9 of the earlier order dated 12.12.2025. 8. Investigation undertaken earlier indicates that these offenses being executed in a well planned manner by syndicates. 9. I do not find sufficient new grounds to take a different view in this subsequent bail petition. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. Page No.# 3/3 11. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant