Court directs trial court to expedite proceedings as only one prosecution witness remains to be examined
In a significant ruling on September 25, 2026, the Meghalaya High Court dismissed the third bail application filed by two Bangladeshi nationals, Saem Hussain and Mafuzur Rahman, accused in a serious criminal case involving multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Arms Act, 1959, the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The applicants were charged under various sections including 3(5), 109(2), 118(2), 140(1), 308(5), 332(a), and 333 of BNSS, along with sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
The case pertains to Nonghyllam Police Station Case No. 09 of 2025, which was converted to Sessions Case No. 11 of 2025. Both accused have been implicated in offenses that carry serious penalties, involving unlawful possession and use of arms, foreigner-related violations, and handling of explosive substances.
During the hearing, counsel for the accused argued that the applicants were falsely implicated and highlighted that nine out of ten prosecution witnesses had already been examined and discharged. The defense stressed that no prima facie case was made out against the accused and that sufficient sureties and local bailors were ready to ensure their compliance with bail conditions. They insisted that the accused would not abscond and should be granted bail to undergo trial with dignity.
Opposing the bail plea, the State's Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that granting bail was inappropriate given the gravity of the charges and the foreign nationality of the accused, which increased the risk of absconding and jeopardizing the trial's integrity. The prosecution emphasized the serious nature of offences, especially those involving arms and explosives.
After considering the submissions, the High Court acknowledged the defense's arguments regarding the stage of trial and sureties but held that the seriousness of the offences and the foreign nationality of the accused outweighed these factors. The Court noted that only one prosecution witness remained to be examined, and therefore, instead of granting bail, it directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it at the earliest.
Consequently, the Court rejected the third bail application and disposed of the petitions, underscoring the importance of ensuring justice through speedy trial rather than premature release of accused persons in grave offences.
This judgment reflects the judiciary's balanced approach towards bail in cases involving national security and foreign nationals, emphasizing the need to protect the integrity of criminal proceedings while respecting procedural safeguards.
Bottom Line:
Bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 - Third bail application by foreign nationals accused of serious offences under BNSS, Arms Act, Foreigners Act and Explosive Substances Act - Rejected where only one prosecution witness remained to be examined and Court directed Trial Court to conclude trial expeditiously.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483, Arms Act, 1959 Sections 25, 27, Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 14, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Section 5
Saem Hussain v. State of Meghalaya, (Meghalaya) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2986391
