Gauhati High Court
Md Nymuddin Ahmed vs The State Of Assam on 7 July, 2026
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
