Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010121992025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1868/2025 JIYARUL ISLAM S/O KALAM MIYA VILL- MOTABARI, P.S. TARABARI, P.O. CHENGA, PIN-781305, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MR N ZAMAN,MR. R ISLAM,H G DAISY,R BEGUM,MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by Page No.# 2/3 the petitioner, namely, Jiyarul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 12.05.2025 (for the last 31 days) in connection with Basistha P. S. Case No. 255/2025 under Sections 316(3) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.05.2025, one Santosh Jha had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Basistha Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-26AC-0874 was dispatched from Guwahati to Silchar with some goods. 4. However, the truck did not reach its destination at Silchar and it was suspected that the truck along with the consignments were stolen by the driver with the help of owner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though, there are materials against the petitioner, as it was the petitioner who led the police to the recovery of some of the goods. However, considering the fact that he has been detained behind the bars for last 31 days, he submits that he may be allowed to go on bail. 6. He also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Basistha P. S. Case No. 255/2025 and has submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner in the case diary. 8. He has submitted that the entire stolen articles are yet to be recovered and some of the co-accused persons are yet to be apprehended. 9. He has also submitted that the present petitioner was the person who arranged the purchaser for purchasing the stolen articles. He, therefore, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 11. Though, there are materials against the petitioner in the case diary, however, considering the fact that he has been detained behind the bars for the last 31 days and is ready to cooperate in the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that if he cooperates in the investigation, further custodial detention may not be necessary. 12. Hence, 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 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) subject to 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. 13. This bail application is, accordingly disposed of. 14. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant