Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010112282026 2026:GAU-AS:9076 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1487/2026 MASUD ZINNUL AHMED SON OF MIZANUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P.O.- BANGHUGI, P.S.- KALGACHIA, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, MR. I HUSSAIN,MR N JAMAL,MR A K AZAD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 23.06.2026. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Masud Zinnul Ahmed who is behind the bar since 08.05.2026, in connection with Kalgachia P.S. Case No. 46/2026 under Page No.# 2/4 Sections 61(2)/318(4)/319(2)/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 14 of the Assam Gaming & Betting Act. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel that the present accused petitioner is in the custody since last 45 days and all the materials have already been seized in connection with this case. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the earlier bail petition of the present accused petitioner was rejected by this Court and the present bail petition has been filed after one month only with a prayer for grating bail considering his length of detention and also the progress in the investigation of the case. He further submitted that on the earlier bail application was rejected by this Court after perusal of the case record. However, he submitted that the case is registered under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/319(2)/ 316(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section read with Section 14 of the Assam Gaming & Betting Act. However, he submitted that except some seizure from the present petitioner, there is no material to show that there is any cheating or misappropriation of any property by the present accused petitioner to attract Sections 61(2)/318(4)/319(2)/ 316(2) of the BNS, 2023, as registered against him. However, the petitioner is still ready to extend his cooperation in further investigation of this case, if he is granted with the privilege of bail. Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised objection and submitted that while rejecting his earlier bail application, this Court had discussed the entire merits of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence as well as also considering the fact that there may be probability of destroying some digital evidence as well as hampering or tempering with the evidence of the case Page No.# 3/4 cannot out rightly be rejected. He further submitted that the investigation of the case is still going on and some of the co-accused persons are yet to be nabbed in connection with this case and accordingly, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted that further custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner will be required for the purpose of investigation. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record as well as the order passed by this Court on 26.05.2026. It is seen that in the earlier bail application the issue basically raised was the non-issuance of the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS corresponding to Section 41A of the CrPC. However, this Court was of the opinion that there were sufficient reasons for immediate arrest of the accused petitioner and satisfactory explanation was made by the I.O. for the immediate arrest of the accused petitioner, without compliance of Section 35(3) of the BNSS. However, it is seen that sufficient materials were seized from the possession of the accused petitioner including some digital devices and digital evidence. However, at present it is seen that the accused petitioner is in custody since last 45 days and there is sufficient progress in the investigation though some of the co-accused persons are yet to be arrested/nabbed in connection with this case. Considering all other aspects of the case and the seizure which have already made by the I.O. vis-à-vis length of detention of the accused petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner may not be required for the purpose of investigation of this case. Page No.# 4/4 Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Barpeta, the accused petitioner, named above, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Barpeta, without prior permission, and (iii) that the petitioner shall submit copy of his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned CJM, Barpeta. (iv) that the accused petitioner shall report to the concerned police station fortnightly and cooperate with the investigation of this case. In terms of above, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant