Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8627 (GAU)

RAFIQUL ISLAM ALIES MUSTAKIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./1531/2026 · 2026-06-21

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010116442026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1531/2026 RAFIQUL ISLAM ALIES MUSTAKIN S/O SOHRAB ALI R/O - MUKUNDAPUR, BHOGPUR, P.S- GORESWAR, DIST - TAMULPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM, Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM,MR N ISLAM,PRABHAT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the petitioner namely, Rafiqul Islam @ Mustakin who was arrested on 27.05.2026, in connection with Changsari P.S. Case No. 121/2026, registered under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/309(4)/ 3/(5) of the BNS, Page No.# 2/2 2023. The allegation in the FIR, stated briefly, is that on the promise of providing gold, the informant came with an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh) for the said purpose, but the petitioner along with another person allegedly snatched the money from the informant. Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended and an amount of Rs. 84,500/- was recovered from him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said allegations are false, and the petitioner’s case is that he had lent and deposited money to the informant for the purpose of purchasing gold, but the informant failed to provide the said gold and instead returned a portion of the money. It is further submitted that the informant, with ulterior motive, lodged a false FIR against the petitioner, which led to his arrest. It appears that after his arrest, the petitioner was straightaway remanded to judicial custody and no police remand was sought. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. The petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Elaka Magistrate in connection with the aforesaid case. Bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant