Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010150962025 2025:GAU-AS:9665 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2016/2025 LUTFAR RAHMAN AND ORS S/O- ABUL KALAM. R/O- VILL.- BHAKUWAMARI P.S. AND DIST.-BARPETA ASSAM. TEMPORARY ADDRESS- BORAGAON NEAR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY P.S.- GORCHUK DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 2: AMINUL HOQUE S/O- AHMED ALI. R/O- VILL.- BHAKUWAMARI P.S. AND DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM. 3: SHAHIDUL ISLAM S/O- SUKUR ALI. R/O- VILL.- BHAKUWAMARI P.S. AND DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : Advocate for : PP Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 28-07-2025 Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who were arrested in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 321/2025, under Sections 318(4)/338/313 of the BNS, 2023. Case Diary is available. Perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the alleged offence and they have been arrested in this case only on suspicion and since last 49 days, they are behind the bars. Thus, the I.O. has got sufficient opportunity to interrogate them, keeping them in custody and as such, their further custodial interrogation may not be required. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners and on enquiry, it has come to light that the petitioners are professional thieves and they are working in an organized manner and is actively involved in similar ATM Card swiping incidents. The modus operandi involved in fake ATM cards in the name of some suspected individuals where they formally targeted elderly persons in ATM booths and deceitfully engaging them in conversation, then swiping the victim’s original ATM card with a fake one. Mr. Borthakur, submitted that vide order dated 30.06.2025 on the prayer of the I.O. Sections 111(2)(b)/111(3)/111(4) of BNS has already been added against the present accused/petitioners. He further submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence and considering the length of detention, petitioners cannot be enlarged on bail. Page No.# 3/3 In that context, Mr. Borthakur further submitted that the provisions of Section 47 and 48 BNSS also been complied with while arresting the petitioners as the details of the crime is mentioned in the Notice under Section 47 BNSS. More so, it is submitted that there are other cases pending against the present petitioners involving similar kind of offences. The petitioners are habitual offenders and hence their custody may be required for further investigation of the case. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. I have also perused the case diary, wherefrom, it is seen that the present accused petitioners are involved in similar offences and they are habitual offenders. It is seen that as per the enquiry report, they mainly target elderly persons in the ATM booths and in the name of swiping ATM cards, used to withdraw money from the account’s using those cards. It is also seen that the provisions of Section 47 and 48 BNSS has also been complied with while arresting the present accused petitioners. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the present petitioners. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant