Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court at Shillong has rejected the third bail applications of two Bangladeshi nationals who are facing trial in a case involving charges under the Arms Act, the Foreigners Act and the Explosive Substances Act. Observing that only one of the ten prosecution witnesses remains to be examined, Justice W. Diengdoh requested the Trial Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude it at the earliest. The common judgment was delivered on 25 September 2026.
The Court was dealing with BA No. 80 of 2026 filed by Shri Saem Hussain and BA No. 81 of 2026 filed by Shri Mafuzur Rahman, both under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Finding that the two applications arose from a common case with identical facts, the Court decided them by a common judgment and order.
The applicants are involved in Nonghyllam P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, now registered as Sessions Case No. 11 of 2025. The sections involved are Sections 3(5), 109(2), 118(2), 140(1), 308(5), 332(a) and 333 of the BNSS, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Court recorded that this was the third bail application moved by them.
Counsel for the applicants, Mr. B. Deb, submitted that they are admittedly foreign nationals from Bangladesh who have been falsely implicated. He submitted that, out of ten prosecution witnesses, nine have been examined and discharged and the last is yet to be examined. According to him, the depositions show that no prima facie case has been made out and that the applicants would eventually have to be acquitted, but since the trial is yet to conclude, the bail application was made. He also offered sufficient sureties and local bailors to ensure that they would abide by any conditions imposed.
The State, through Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. J.N. Rynjah, opposed the applications on two grounds. First, the applicants are foreign nationals, and, if released, the possibility of their “jumping bail is very imminent”, which would jeopardise the remaining part of the trial. Second, the offences are very serious in nature, and some of them involve provisions of the Arms Act.
The Court noted that, according to the applicants’ counsel, a case for bail had been made out, as no prima facie case was found against them and they were ready to furnish sufficient sureties to be available for the remaining trial. It also noted the State’s submission that, despite their being foreign nationals, the allegations involved serious offences including those under the Arms Act.
The Court was then made to understand that, out of ten prosecution witnesses, only one witness remains to be examined. In the interest of justice, it found no reason to allow the prayer made in the petitions. At the same time, it requested the Trial Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude it at the earliest, which, in the opinion of the Court, would be sufficient as far as the fate of the applicants is concerned.
Holding the petitions to be devoid of merit, the Court rejected and disposed of both bail applications.
Appearances: For the Petitioners/Applicants: Mr. B. Deb, Advocate, and Ms. P. Kharmawshun, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. J.N. Rynjah, Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Shri Saem Hussain v. State of Meghalaya, BA No. 80 of 2026, with Shri Mafuzur Rahman v. State of Meghalaya, BA No. 81 of 2026
