Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010013542026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/188/2026 MUKTAR HUSSAIN S/O JAINAL ABDIN, R/O VILL BAGDIA, PO BHAKATPARA, PS DHULA, DIST DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN 784190 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN, MR. A AHMED,MR. M ALOM,MS. F H AHMED,MRS. S Y AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 20.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant in connection with Borpathar P.S. Case No. 24/2025, Page No.# 2/2 registered under Sections 317(2)/275(2)/303(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 51 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 3. The allegation, as narrated in the FIR dated 15.11.2025, is that the six- wheeler truck owned by the accused/applicant was used for smuggling 4,385 kgs of areca nuts (supari) packed in 129 bags. The police recovered and seized the areca nuts (supari) along with the vehicle. 4. The police arrested both the driver and the handyman of the vehicle, implicating the driver and stating that the vehicle is owned by the accused/applicant. The accused/applicant has approached this Court by filing the present bail application. 5. The learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the accused/applicant had rented out the vehicle under a proper rent agreement and, therefore, was not aware of any illegal activities conducted by the handyman and the driver of the vehicle. 6. The CD of the instant case has been produced before this Court and has been perused by it. The learned APP has submitted that there is a specific statement indicating that the driver of the vehicle had a secret chamber, which was known to the accused/applicant. 7. On perusal of the case diary, and after hearing both parties, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant at this stage. Consequently, the same is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant