Gauhati High Court
Mohammad Mukhlesur Rahman And Anr vs The State Of Assam on 7 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010139832026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1527/2026
MOHAMMAD MUKHLESUR RAHMAN AND ANR
S/O JOYNAL ABEDIN
R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 KADAMGURI HOWLY TOWN, P.S. HOWLY DISTRICT
BARPETA, ASSAM DIRECTOR OF YUMLY LIFESTYLE (OPC) PVT. LTD.
(MYSAWARI)
2: SHAFI KAMAL AHMED
S/O SHAHJAHAN ALI AHMED
R/O VILLAGE HATIJANA P.S. HOWLY DISTRICT BARPETA
ASSAM EMPLOYEE OF YUMLY LIFESTYLE (OPC) PVT. LTD. (MYSAWARI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N ZAMAN,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
07.07.2026
Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S.
Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
Page No.# 2/3
2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioners viz. [i] Mohammad Mukhlesur Rahman; and [ii] Shafi Kamal Ahmed who
are apprehending their arrest in connection with a case which may be registered on
the basis of G.D. Entry no. 45/2026 dated 22.06.2026 of Barpeta Police Station.
3. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the
petitioners have been served notices under Section 35[3] of the BNSS by the police of
Barpeta Police Station with a direction to appear before the Investigating Officer [I.O.]
on 26.06.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuant to the
notice received by the petitioner no. 2, he appeared before the I.O. However, he was
detained in the police station for whole night and was subjected to physical assault by
police and in this regard, he also lodged a complaint before the Assam Human Rights
Commission. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioner no. 1 received a notice under Section 35[3] of the BNSS on 26.06.2026 itself
and therefore, he could not appear before the I.O. on that day. Now the petitioners
are apprehended that if they appear before the I.O. they might be arrested on the
basis of the aforesaid G.D. Entry case.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
submitted that in the instant case only notice under Section 35[3] has been issued to
both the petitioners and the petitioner no. 2 was allowed to be released on released
on 26.06.2026. He further submits that there is no apprehension of the petitioners’
getting arrested as it is not clear as to whether any police station case has been
registered on the basis of the G.D. Entry no. 45/2026.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Let a report be called for from the Office In-Charge of Barpeta Police Station as
Page No.# 3/3
to whether on the basis of the G.D. Entry no. 45/2026 dated 22.06.2026 any police
station case has been registered or not and if so, status thereof.
6. In the meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Officer In-
Charge of Barpeta Police Station in connection with the notices issued to them under
Section 35[3] of the BNSS in connection with G.D. Entry no. 45/2026 dated
22.06.2026. In the event the petitioners are arrested in connection with any police
station case registered on the basis of the said G.D. Entry, they shall be released on
interim bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- each with one surety each of the like
amount, subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the following
conditions :-
(i) That the petitioners 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 of the case
before the Investigating Officer; and
(ii) That the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation.
7. Let this matter be listed on 30.07.2026 for report.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
