✦ Gauhati High Court

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

MANASH RANJAN PATHAK4 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1313. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Hasinur @ Hasinur Islam, son of Gulzar Rahman, in said Mankachar P.S. Case No. 01/2025 stand rejected.

Judgment

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr S HUSSAIN, MR S HUSSAIN,A A AHMED,MR. M U MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK BEFORE 27-02-2025 ORDER Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2.

By this application, the petitioner, namely, Abdul Hasinur @ Hasinur Islam, son of Gulzar Rahman, resident of Village-Jordanga Pt-II (Kuchnimara), P.O.- Mankachar, Police Station- Mankachar, District-South Salmara, Mankachar, Assam filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking bail in Mankachar P.S. Case No. 01/2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 06/2025, registered under Sections 61(2)/147/196(1)(b)/294/318(4)/336(3) /340(2) BNS read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, read with Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, read with Section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, wherein, he was arrested on 05.01.2025 and is in custody since then.

3.

As per the FIR 05.01.2025 lodged before the Mankachar Police Station, the case is that the petitioner and some other accused persons facilitated the illegal entry of Bangladeshi nationals without Passport, without Visa and without other related travel documents into India for which the petitioner along with other accused persons used to take money from such Bangladeshi nationals and others used to facilitate those Bangladeshi nationals not only enabling them to be in Indian soil, but also prepared fake documents to those Bangladeshi nationals to prove themselves as Indian citizens.

4.

The petitioner was also found with foreign currency (Bangladeshi) amounting to Rs. 2,320/-. For all such reasons, he was arrested and was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hatsingimari, South Salmara-Mankachar, Hatsingimari on 05.01.2025.

5.

The petitioner contended that there is an Indo-Bangla Gate at Jordanga Part-II, Kuchnimara under Mankachar Police Station in the District of South Salmara-Mankachar, where people from neighbouring country used to cultivate on their respective land in said no- man’s area. On the date of the incident, i.e., on 05.01.2025 some Bangladeshi nationals Page No.# 3/4 crossed the Indo-Bangla Border and worked in said no-man’s area as cultivators. But they stayed in the Indian soil beyond the time limit stipulated by the Border Security Force Personnel. As such, a total of 16 numbers of Bangladeshi nationals were detained by Mankachar Police Station and subsequently, those 16 Bangladeshi nationals were pushed back to Bangladesh. While releasing those Bangladeshi nationals, Bangladeshi currency amounting to Rs. 2,323/- was seized from those Bangladeshi nationals and stated that the petitioner is no way connected with the case.

6.

It is also submitted by the petitioner that the offence under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 at best will be attracted to him and penalty of Rs.5,000/- for every day after the first day during which the contraventions continued as provided under Section 13 of the said 1999 Act.

7.

Petitioner denied his involvement in the alleged crime and prayed for his release on bail in said Mankachar P.S. Case No. 01/2025 considering his detention in custody since

05.01.2025.

8.

Perused the case diary placed before the Court today by Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP that was called for by order dated 14.02.2025.

9.

The statement of the independent witnesses, so far recorded by the concerned Investigating Officer of the case as available in the case diary, implicated the petitioner and other arrested accused persons of the case that the accused petitioner along with other arrested accused persons of the case brought 16 Bangladeshi nationals from Bengaluru, Karnakata to Guwahati and then to Mankachar and on 23.12.2024 out of those 16 numbers of Bangladeshi nationals, the petitioner kept most of them in his house and he also facilitated those 16 Bangladeshi nationals to cross over to Bangladesh and that the petitioner is involved with the illegal business of crossing Bangladeshi nationals to and fro between India and Bangladesh without having any valid legal travel documents.

10.

Case diary also reveals that one of the prime accused of the case, under whose direction the petitioner and other arrested accused persons used to work are involved not only in the illegal crossing over of Bangladeshi nationals to India and from India to Bangladesh, but also in the illegal business of sending of cattle to Bangladesh from India and Page No.# 4/4 said accused is yet to be apprehended by police in the case.

11.

Case diary reveals that during investigation, police have seized certain documents that were prepared by the petitioner and other arrested accused persons of the case, which are forged and by those documents, the petitioner facilitated those Bangladeshi nationals to prove themselves as Indian citizen.

12.

Considering such materials in the case diary and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner in said Mankachar P.S. Case No. 01/2025 considering his detention in custody since

06.01.2025.

13.

Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Hasinur @ Hasinur Islam, son of Gulzar Rahman, in said Mankachar P.S. Case No. 01/2025 stand rejected.

14.

Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments