Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010154882025 2025:GAU-AS:9315 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2254/2025 PRIYAM GHOSH AND ANR S/O SRI PANKAJ GHOSH R/O WARD NO. 3, GOURIPUR TOWN, P.S. GOURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: AJIBAR ALI SAIKH S/O KADAM ALI SHEIKH R/O DALSINGALGA PT.II P.S. GOURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, MS. N PODDAR,MR. C SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 19-07-2025 Page No.# 2/4 Heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioners are behind bars since 17.06.2025 in connection with Kazigaon P.S. Case No. 44/2025 u/s 303(2)/317(4)/3(5) of BNS Act. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present two accused/petitioners had not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. It is a fact that petitioner no. 1 is a Contractor who used to supply the batteries and he was supposed to take back the old batteries from the Airport Authority, which was earlier supplied by him. But, when he searched for them then only the Airport Authority noticed that 42 nos. of batteries were missing from the possession of the accused no. 1 Ajay Kumar Das who was the In-charge of the old batteries. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner no. 2 is a battery dealer who used to purchase the old batteries but this is not a case that they have received the stolen batteries from the Airport Authority. However, some of the batteries have been seized from the possession of the accused/petitioner no. 2 but, those were not the batteries which were alleged to have been stolen from the Airport Authority. Further, he submitted that the prime accused i.e. the accused no. 1 Ajay Kumar Das has already been granted bail considering his length of detention and who was the custodian of the old batteries of the Airport Authority. 4. Mr. Poddar further submitted that these two accused/petitioners are behind the bars since last 33 days and hence considering their length of detention also they may be released on bail. The I/O has got sufficient opportunity to Page No.# 3/4 interrogate the accused/petitioners during their custodial detention and hence further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. However, both the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate the I/O in further investigation of the case, if they are granted with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that these two accused/petitioners are also involved in receiving and stolen the batteries from the Airport Authority in connivance with accused no. 1 who was the custodian/Incharge of the old batteries of the Airport Authority. Mr. Borthakur also pointed out point no. 6 of the grounds of arrest wherefrom also it is seen that the accused/petitioner no. 2 had received those batteries from the accused/petitioner no. 1 with the help of the Electric Incharge of Rupsi Airport i.e. the accused no. 1. Further he submitted that during investigation the alleged accused/person could not submit any such document regarding the seizure of these documents. Mr. Borthakur accordingly submitted that further custodial interrogation may be required for further investigation for which he submitted that Case Dairy may be called for which will reveal the actual fact of the case. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, considering the materials available in the case record and also considering the fact that the accused no. 1 has been already granted bail by this Court and the ground of parity as well as the length of detention had already undergone by the accused/petitioners, I find that further custodial interrogation to the present accused/petitioners may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. Accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioners. Page No.# 4/4 7. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kokrajhar. The accused/petitioners, namely, [1] Priyam Ghosh and [2] Ajibar Ali Saikh be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kokrajhar without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant