Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9015 (GAU)

BILAL UDDIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2551/2025 · 2026-06-23

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010237362025 2026:GAU-AS:9162 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2551/2025 BILAL UDDIN S/O ASADDAR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOUDANGA PATHER, PS MURAJHAR, DIST HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN 782439 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, MR. D K AGARWALA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.06.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr.T.Laskar for the petitioner and learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.K.K. Parashar for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Bilal Uddin, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Page No.# 2/3 Murajhar Case No.175/2025 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 12.09.2025, lodged by the father of the alleged victim naming five accused persons including the present petitioner. 4. The allegations in a nutshell are that on 31.08.2025, the accused no.1 took the informant’s son to Cachar for working as mason and the remaining accused persons also accompanied and subsequently it is alleged that they made him work for a person and having already received his wages of Rs. 2 Lakhs, the landlord confined him stating that he would be released only upon returning the said amount. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that actual facts have been distorted. The present petitioner is not involved in committing any offence. 6. It is also submitted that in the meantime, the said victim boy has already returned to his house. 7. I have considered the submissions at the bar. 8. I have also considered the fact that the victim has already been recovered. The petitioner has appeared before the I.O. and he has co-operated with the investigation. The petitioner has not violated any bail conditions. Thereby, the interim order dated 29.10.2025 is made absolute under the same terms and conditions. 9. The anticipatory bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant