Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010055632026 2026:GAU-AS:4020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./810/2026 KAMAL UDDIN ALIAS KAMAL AHMED S/O KHALILUR RAHMAN @ KHALIL MOHALDAR, R/O VILL- BHELOGURI,P.O. MADARTOLI, P.S. DABOKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B CHANDA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 19.03.2026. Heard Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail Page No.# 2/3 to the accused petitioner, namely, Kamal Uddin @ Kamal Ahmed, who has been arrested on 11.03.2026, in connection with Daboka P.S. Case No. 33/2026, under Sections 126(2)/308(5)/351(3) of the BNS, 2023. It is submitted by Mr. Chanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged against him in the FIR. Even if the statement made in the FIR is considered to be true, in that case also no non-bailable case is made out against the present accused petitioner, as no extortion has been committed except the allegation of threatening. He further submitted that the entire case is lodged by the informant only with some political grudge before the ensuing Assembly Election. However, the petitioner is in custody since 7/8 days and hence, considering his period of detention, he may be released on bail. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that it is a fact that no extortion has been committed but he threatened the informant to purchase goods for him and also demanded Rs.5 lacs from him. Accordingly, he submitted that the case diary may be called for. Considering the submission of learned counsel for both sides and the statement made in the FIR and other aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required for the purpose of investigation of the case. In view of the above, this Court find it to be a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused petitioner. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Hojai, the accused/petitioner Page No.# 3/3 named above, shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Hojai, without prior permission, and (iii) that the petitioner shall submit copy of his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned CJM, Hojai. In terms of above, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant