Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010133822026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1771/2026 MD NYMUDDIN AHMED S/O NABIR ALIR/O AMTOLAPAR DAMPUR, P.S. HAJO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM 781102, PH NO 9508011367 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS M ZOMUANPUII,MR P DOLEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 07.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. P. Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. I have also perused the office note dated 06.07.2026 which indicates that this matter was earlier taken up by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma). However, since vacations are Page No.# 2/4 going on and since the said Bench is not available now, this matter was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and after His Lordship’s order, this matter has been listed before this Bench. 3. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Nymuddin Ahmed, who has been detained behind the bars since 09.05.2026, in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 49/2026, under Sections 123/305(c) of BNS. 4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant bail application, in brief, are that on 29.04.2026, one Aniket Chaurasia had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Fatasil Ambari Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on that day at about 2:00 PM, one vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-25-CC-6847 departed from a go-down situated at Datalpara after loading zarda pan masala and the said vehicle did not reach its destination. Later on, it was found that the vehicle was completely empty and all loaded goods were missing. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. However, it has been alleged that the missing goods were recovered from his custody. He also submits that his brother, namely, Nabab Uddin Ahmed, who was also suspected to be involved in this case, has already been granted interim anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that the petitioner has been detained behind bars for the last 58 days and the day after tomorrow he would be completing his statutory period of detention. Hence, he prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would co-operate in the investigation, if he is released on bail. Page No.# 3/4 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the petitioner has been behind bars for the last 58 days, however, on an earlier occasion, his bail application was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the incriminating materials in the case diary and while rejecting the bail after perusing the case diary, the Co-ordinate Bench has observed that sufficient incriminating materials were found in the case diary. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 9. Though, the order dated 17.06.2026, passed in Bail Application No. 1540/2026 indicates that there are sufficient intimidating materials against the petitioner in the case diary, however, considering the fact that he has been detained behind bars for the last 58 days and the maximum period for which he can be detained during the course of investigation for the offence alleged in this case is only 60 days. Moreover, one of the co-accused has also been granted interim protection by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, if the petitioner co- operates in investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of this case. 10. As such, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer; Page No.# 4/4 (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. 11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant