Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010099942026 2026:GAU-AS:8586 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1136/2026 SAMINUL ISLAM AND ANR S/O- MOHAMMAD ALI RESIDENT OFVILLAGE- RAMPUR PO- NIZ RAMPUR PS- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM. 2: SANIDUL ISLAM S/O- MANNAN ALI RESIDENT OF - VILLAGE- KHUDRAKHUWA PO- ISHAPUR PS- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K AZAD, MR. I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 12.06.2026 Heard Mr A K Azad, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr Bankim Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Kalgachia PS Case No. 46/2026, registered under Sections Page No.# 2/3 61(2)/318(4)/319(2)/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS, read with Section 14 of the Assam Gaming and Betting Act. 3. At the very outset, it has been stated that amongst the two petitioners, petitioner No. 1 has already been arrested and as such, this application will have to be considered in respect of petitioner No. 2, namely, Sanidul Islam. 4. The FIR dated 07.05.2026, reveals that on a secret information, the Police has raided house of one Masud Zinnul Ahmed and found a number of incriminating materials/articles from his house and it was deduced that cybercrime activities are being carried out in his house. The shop of said Masud Zinnul Ahmed was also searched and a number of suspected articles were recovered and that, thereafter, the Police proceeded to the house of one Raju Ahmed, and there also, search was conducted and a number of incriminating articles were found. In the said FIR, it is further stipulated by the Police personnel that other associates are also involved in the said cyber crime and there, the Police had stated five names and amongst them, petitioner is one of them. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that like the house of the other two co-accused were searched, the house of the petitioner could also be searched, however, the same was not done and simply, the name of the petitioner was stated in the FIR. He further stated that there is nothing in the First Information Report that the offence is relatable to cybercrime activities, although registration is done under the offences of cybercrime. 6. On the other hand, Mr B Sarma, submits that on perusal of the Case Diary, number of articles incriminating in nature were found in the house of the co-accused and since cybercrime is an organized activity, two persons cannot continue the same and there will be other associates and the petitioner was found to be one of such associate. He had also stated that money was being collected from the victims, in pursuance to the said criminal activities. Page No.# 3/3 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the parties, and also due to the fact that the informant had not revealed the source of information as to how they found out the name of the petitioner as one of the associates involved in the cybercrime and without there being any substantiating materials, showing his involvement, this Court finds it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority on the following conditions that:- i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 (ten) days from the date of the order; and ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witnesses. 7. Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant