Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010092392025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1379/2025 SUJON SHEIKH S/O FALU SHEIKH R/O VILL- BHIMAPARA P.O. HATSINGIMARI DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, namely, Sujon Sheikh, who has been detained behind the bars since 07.04.2025 (for the last 38 days) in connection with Chandmari P. S. Case No. 93/2025 registered under Sections 331(2)/305 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 06.04.2025, one Yogabrat Deka had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Chandmari Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on 05.04.2025 at about 2.07 a.m., two thieves entered into the house of the informant and committed theft of laptop, iPhone as well as iPad. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. He submits that the police has seized his laptop, mobile phone and iPad and one iPhone from him on 07.04.2025, which he had purchased from one Sahil Ahmed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in connection with the aforesaid case, the police has arrested five other accused persons, who are already released on bail by the Trial Court. 6. He also submits that the petitioner has already been detained behind the bars for the last 38 days and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 9. Since the prosecution side has failed to produce the case diary without any just reasons for the same and since other co-accused have already been granted bail, and also considering the period of detention undergone by the present petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner cooperates in Page No.# 3/3 the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation in Chandmari P. S. Case No. 93/2025. 10. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. 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 of the case before the Investigating Officer. 11. With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant