Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142422026 2026:GAU-AS:9627 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1564/2026 DEWAN ABDUL S/O LATE DEWAN MOKSED, VILL - HALDHIA PATHAR, P.S.- KALGACHIA, DIST - BARPETA, ASSAM -781319 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MR. R GHOSH,MS. N PODDAR,MR. C SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 15-07-2026 Heard Mr. S. K. Podder, learned counsel for the accused applicants and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicants in connection with Kalgachia P. S. Case No. 54/2026 under Sections 318(4)/316(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 14 of the Assam Games and Betting Act, 1970. Page No.# 2/3 3. The gist of the case is that on 31.05.2026, the complainant, namely, SI Jitul Das of Kalgachia Police Station, lodged an FIR before Kalgachia Police Station alleging that at about 8:30 A.M., credible information was received from a reliable source regarding ongoing illegal betting and gambling during the Indian Premier League (IPL) through mobile phones at Kharisala Bazar area. It was alleged that, acting upon such information, the police team proceeded to the place of occurrence and conducted a raid and search at the house of the one Dewan Jeherul. During the raid and search, the police recovered a couple of mobile phones along with debit cards of various banks in the names of different persons. After recovery of those materials and on receiving further information, the police raided another place, namely, a rented flat at Green Hillside Apartment, Basistha, Guwahati and recovered several debit cards belonging to different persons. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Kalgachia P.S. Case No. 54/2026 under the aforementioned sections. 5. It is submitted that after the registration of the case, while the accused applicant was not present at his house, the police visited his residence on a few occasions in search of him. Upon not finding him, they allegedly pressurized his family members to produce the accused applicant before the Kalgachia Police Station. 6. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the accused applicant, submits that the accused applicant is the cousin brother of the aforesaid Dewan Jeherul, who is the main accused in the present case and that the accused applicant is not connected with the offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that, vide order dated 14.07.2026, the main accused, Sri Dewan Jeherul, was released Page No.# 3/3 on bail. He also submits that the documents, debit cards and mobile phones relating to the alleged offence have already been seized by the police. Therefore, he contends that the custodial interrogation of the accused applicant may not be necessary and accordingly prays that the accused applicant be granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail at this stage. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that there are incriminating materials indicating the involvement of the accused applicant. He submits that more than Rupees Eleven Lakhs have been credited to different bank accounts of the accused applicant. He further submits that the investigation is still in progress and that the role of all other persons involved in the case is yet to be fully investigated. Therefore, he submits that the custodial interrogation of the accused applicant is necessary and accordingly, he opposes the prayer for grant of interim pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant. 8. The Case Diary in the instant case has been received. I have carefully perused the same along with the materials available on record and have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and having found prima facie incriminating materials against the accused applicant, this Court is not inclined, at this stage, to grant the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant