Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020002242026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : AB/4/2026 ZAKIR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY S/O LATE FAKAR UDDIN CHOUDHURY, R/O LAXMI CHARAN ROAD, WARD NO. 05, P.S. AND DISTRICT, SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND. Advocate for the Petitioner : M SOLO, LUCY WEO Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. Unush Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned P.P appearing for the State. The instant application under section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Kohima North P.S Case No. 40/2025 registered under section 316(2)/318(2)(3) BNS. Page No.# 2/4 The case of the petitioner is that an FIR has been lodged against him at the Kohima North P.S and registered as Case No. 0040/2025, registered under Sections 316(2)/318(2)(3) BNS. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the case arises out of purely commercial transaction relating to an investment in a brick business run by the main accused Mr. Rashid Ahmed Choudhury. The petitioner also submits that by an order dated 30.03.2026, the petitioner has been granted transit bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi. The Police had arrested the petitioner and sought transit remand, but by order dated 30.03.2026, the learned CJM, Sribhumi, was pleased to grant transit bail to the petitioner with conditions including appearing before the learned CJM, Kohima within 15 days and rendering full co- operation to the investigation. Going back to the allegations, the gist of the allegations in the FIR dated 22.05.2025, is that the informant was encouraged and induced to invest some money in the trade business with the accused person especially accused No.2/Rashid Ahmed Choudhury and towards the said objective she on 24.10.2021, and gave Rs. 2.70 lakh in cash to her friend to give to the accused person and thereafter, on the next day i.e 25.10.2021, the informant’s friend transferred that amount into bank account of Zakir Hussain Choudhury who is stated to be the agent of the accused No.2/ Rashid Ahmed Choudhury-stated to be the sole proprietor of Royal Bricks Industry. The allegation of the informant is that thereafter he and his friends have tried numerous times to communicate with the accused persons but they have become evasive and that neither the money nor the bricks supposed to have been given. Vide order dated 16.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner Page No.# 3/4 was granted interim anticipatory bail. CD called for has been received, in a scanned form The learned P.P opposing the bail submits that despite being granted regular transit bail by the learned CJM, Kohima, the petitioner has not complied with the condition and that he has neither appeared before the learned CJM Kohima nor before the I.O. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to a reply to the notice, indicating the difficulty due to geographical conditions in appearing before the I.O and also due to health condition. It is submitted by the prosecution that so far, neither the money has been returned nor the bricks which were supposed to be given to the informant have been given so. It is submitted by the prosecution that despite being given interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation, nor appeared before the I.O. I have given my due consideration to the matter. Perused the relevant CD. Though, the petitioner was granted transit bail by the learned CJM Sribhumi, he has clearly not complied with the conditions imposed in the bail order, including appearing before the learned CJM Kohima. From the investigation materials of the Case Dairy, I find force in the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner, despite getting interim anticipatory bail from this Court, has not rendered his cooperation to the investigation and has rather made some excuses for not appearing before the I.O. From the investigation, it is revealed that neither the money given by the informant has been returned back nor the goods in question given to the informant. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view Page No.# 4/4 that the petitioner is not deserving of the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner stands vacated and the instant petition for anticipatory bail stands rejected, at this stage. The anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant