Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010162062025 2025:GAU-AS:10782 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2355/2025 SRI ANIL AGARWAL ALIAS NANU AND ANR S/O LATE OM PRAKASH AGARWAL R/OP NA PUKHJURI TAXI STAND P.O.AND P.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2: RANJIT PATEL S/O SRI CHATURI PATEL R/O CHALIHA NAGR NEAR TDA P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HASAN, MR. I K BURAGOHAIN,MR. A HASAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard Mr. N. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who are arrested in connection with Margherita P.S. Case No. 74/2025 under Sections 303(3)/317(4)/324(5)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Case diary is produced before the Court and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hassan, learned counsel that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. 5. Further, it is submitted that from the order of the learned Trial Court below it reveals that some parts of the dumper truck has already been recovered by the I.O. of the case during investigation. More so, the petitioner No.1 was arrested in the case on 21.06.2025 and for the last 54 days he is behind the bars and his further custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation of the case. 6. Mr. Hassan, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner No. 2 was not at all involved in the alleged offence and the only allegation brought against him is that he was a proposed purchaser of some of the parts of the said dumper truck. The petitioner No. 2 was arrested on 03.07.2025 and for the last 42 days he is behind the bars and considering his length of detention, both the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 may be released on bail. 7. However, they are ready and willing to co-operate with the I.O. in further investigation of the case, if they are granted with the privilege of bail. 8. Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that this is an organized crime, wherein many persons are involved and during investigation of the case, sufficient incriminating materials have been collected by the I.O. More so, the petitioner No.1 took the dumber truck by a crane with the help of 3 Page No.# 3/4 (three) other persons and thus, he is directly involved in the alleged offence. The petitioner No. 2 is also involved in the alleged offence. 9. During investigation, the I.O. has collected the CDR details, Whatsapp details, etc., from the concerned authority, wherefrom the involvement of these two petitioners are found in the alleged offence. 10. Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP accordingly raised objection and submitted that this case may not be considered on the length of detention. 11. Heard learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case diary and the note of the I.O. annexed along with the case diary, wherefrom, it is seen that during investigation some parts of the said dumper truck has already been recovered and it is also seen that lot of persons are involved in the alleged offence and some of the culprits are yet to be nabbed in this case. 12. The I.O. note also speaks that there are some other culprits, who are fully involved in the present case and they are also involved in similar kind of offences, but till date they have not been arrested by police and they are evading arrest. But considering the note of the I.O., the materials available in the case diary and also considering the length of detention of the petitioners, I find that further custodial detention of the petitioners are not required for further investigation of the case. 13. In view of the above, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioners. 14. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Anil Agarwal @ Nanu and (ii) Ranjit Patel, be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each, only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Margherita, subject to the following Page No.# 4/4 conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case and (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 15. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. 16. Return the case diary herewith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant