Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9005 (GAU)

MIRAJUL ALI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./1546/2026 · 2026-06-23

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010117502026 2026:GAU-AS:9171 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1546/2026 MIRAJUL ALI S/O PARHEJ ALI,R/O SUNDARBARI NAGAR, NEAR BALIJAN MASJID,P.S. HATIGAON,DISTRICT KAMRUP M, ASSAM,PIN 781038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S E AHMED, M AHMED,MR D J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel Ms. S.E. Ahmed for the petitioner Mirajul Ali, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 17.05.2026 in connection with Hatigaon P.S Case No. 78/2026, registered under Sections Page No.# 2/3 117(2)/3(5)/305/308(2)/329(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. A. Begum for the respondent State. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with his friends, entered the informant’s house at about 7:00 PM and demanded money of Rs.20,000/-. When the informant refused to pay the said amount, they broke the cash box and attempted to take away Rs.50,000/- kept in the cash box. The informant then raised an alarm, whereupon the owner of the house came and tried to stop them. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with the other miscreants, assaulted the owner of the house with a stick, causing injuries on his head and other parts of his body. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that this is a serious offence and that the petitioner is not entitled to bail without perusal of the case diary. It is submitted that the case diary would reveal the conduct of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the offence could have resulted in the death of the owner, who has sustained head injuries. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar that the petitioner has been behind Bars for 37 days. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the remaining part of the investigation and undertakes to abide by any stringent bail conditions, if imposed upon him. 7. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the above-named petitioner Page No.# 3/3 shall be enlarged on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Jurisdictional Court with following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. on every fortnight, till completion of investigation; (ii) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged; (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission; (iv) the petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them. 8. On breach of any of the bail conditions, bail order shall stand cancelled. 9. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant