Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010091032026 2026:GAU-AS:7130 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1229/2026 MOJAMIL HOQUE S/O- LATE TAHID ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BARIGAON P.O. - HENGALPARA P.S. - SIPAJHAR DISTRICT - DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M HOQUE, MS J BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22-05-2026 Heard Mr. M Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/3 Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 20.04.2026 in connection with Sipajhar P.S. Case No. 49/2026 u/s 118(2)/109 of BNS Act. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Borthakur that the case ought to have been listed in the Hearing Column though inadvertently it has been listed in the Motion Column. However, the Case Diary and Injury Report have not been received from the I/O. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a dispute/quarrel between husband and wife wherein the wife of the present petitioner sustained injury as per her allegation. However, as per his instruction, she has already been released and there was a simple dispute arose between them on the day of the incident. There is none to look after the two minor children of the petitioner and that apart the accused/petitioner himself surrendered before the learned Trial Court below and since 20.04.2026 he is in custody. Thus, the I/O got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him keeping him in custody and hence further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. 5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the FIR itself it is seen that she was injured with a sharp object and at the time of lodging of the FIR she was undergone treatment. So considering the nature of offence, he insisted to call for the Case Diary and Injury Report. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and without going into the merit of the case, only considering the length of detention undergone by the accused/petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that Page No.# 3/3 further custodial detention may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail 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, Darrang, Mangaldoi. The accused/petitioner, namely Mojamil Hoque, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Darrang, Mangaldoi without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant