Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010116492026 2026:GAU-AS:9905 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1529/2026 NOJIBUL HAQUE ALIAS DHAN S/O- LT. MOHSIN ALI. R/O - RANGIA, WARD NO.1 P.S.- RANGIA DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM PIN-781354 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, K AHMED,MS A HUSSAIN,DEBAKSHI BORA,MR. UDDYAN BHATTACHARYYA,SABRISH AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 20.07.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Darak Ullah for the petitioner Nojibul Haque @ Dhan who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for bail in connection with Ghograpar P. S. Case No.44/2026, under Sections 61(2) (a)/ 126(2)/117(2)/109(1)/309(6)/ 62 of the BNS, 2023. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was behind bars for 27 days and Page No.# 2/4 thereafter vide order of this Court dated 11.06.2026, the petitioner was granted interim bail as sufficient grounds were found by this Court to grant interim bail to the petitioner. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has not violated any bail condition to warrant cancellation of the interim bail. It is submitted that the FIR does not reveal a case of dacoity. The FIR reveals that on 13.05.2026, the vehicle of the informant Nitesh Sharma was stopped by an unknown vehicle and some miscreants emerged from the vehicle. The miscreants assaulted Nitesh Sharma inside his vehicle but somehow Nitesh Sharma tried to raise alarm despite the fact that he was not allowed to come out of his vehicle. He managed to come out and when he raised alarm, some people gathered at the place of occurrence and the miscreants fled. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation that the miscreants assaulted the victim with sharp weapons with intent to eliminate him is absolutely false, as the victim managed to drive to the police station to lodge the FIR. The petitioner was granted interim bail, as the grounds of arrest reveals that the petitioner had contacted one of the co-accused who was involved in the alleged attempt to commit dacoity and murder. It is also submitted that the petitioner was granted interim bail as his name was not mentioned in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to grant bail to the petitioner. 4. Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objections stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. Call data records reveal that the petitioner had called the main accused who has been forwarded to custody. It is submitted that there is a nexus between the petitioner and some persons from outside the state of Assam who in prosecution of their common object attacked the victim who is a Page No.# 3/4 judicial officer. All the miscreants involved in the nexus along with the arrested accused Mukesh are to be apprehended. Only one of the miscreants has been apprehended. Investigation is still under progress and may be adversely affected if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. 5. I have also scrutinized the case diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary. The victim/ injured person has sustained several injuries as reflected in the injury report. The victim who is a judicial officer has sustained the following injuries: fresh lacerated aggression injury on the right and left shoulder region and left upper arm lacerated and aggression injury on the right and left temporal region. The injuries clearly reflect that the injured person was mercilessly assaulted. There are indeed incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS clearly reveals that there are incriminating materials against the miscreants and they had indeed rescued the injured person from the miscreants. The relationship between the accused arrested in connection with the case and the petitioner cannot be ruled out. 6. However, I have considered the submissions that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the remaining part of the investigation and to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him. The petitioner is a local resident and he is not a flight risk. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, the interim order dated 11.06.2026 is made absolute under the following conditions:- i) That the petitioner shall appear before the I.O on every fortnight till completion of Page No.# 4/4 investigation, ii) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities of which he is alleged, iii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witness or try to influence them, and iv) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. 8. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 9. In terms of the above observations, the bail application stands disposed of. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant