Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010168952025 2025:GAU-AS:11206 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2450/2025 SAHJAHAN ALI AND ANR SON OF ALI HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TAMULDI, PS BOKO, DISTRICT KAMRUP (R), ASSAM 2: HAFIZUR ROHMAN SON OF LALCHAN ALI R/O VILL- PURANGAON P.S. BOKO DIST. KAMRUP (R) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MS P BARMAN,MR K THAKUR,MR M ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 21.08.2025. Heard Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Page No.# 2/4 Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused petitioners, namely, (1) Sahjahan Ali and (2) Hafizur Rohman, who have been arrested on 30.06.2025, in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 230/2025, under Section 126(2)/127(2)/140(3)/309(4) of the BNS, 2023. It is submitted by Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petitioners are innocent and they are not at all involved with the alleged offence. There is no recovery from the possession of the accused No.1. However, it is alleged that there are some recovery from the possession of the accused petitioner No.2. But on the day of incident and on the day of recover, the petitioner No.2 was not in the State of Assam and he was in Kolkata and on the next day only he returned from Kolkata and to substantiate the same, some train tickets of the petitioner No.2 also annexed with the petition. It is further submitted by Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused petitioners are in the custody since 53 days and thus, the I.O. has got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused petitioners in connection with this case. However, they are still ready and willing to extend their cooperation in further investigation of the case, if they are granted the privilege of bail. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused petitioners and the petitioner No.1 was the driver of the said vehicle wherein all the theft articles were loaded and all of Page No.# 3/4 those were kept in the godown of the petitioner No.2. Further, it is submitted that the present two accused petitioners are involved in similar kind of offence and after considering the statement of the co-accused persons and other materials available in the case diary, prayer was made for adding Section 310(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 111(2) of the BNS, 2023, which was accordingly allowed during the investigation. Further it is submitted from the note of the I.O. and other materials also it is seen that several cases are also been pending against the other co-accused persons and the present accused petitioners and accordingly, considering the nature of offence they committed, it can be considered as an organized crime wherein these petitioners along with other co- accused persons are involved. Mr. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam further submitted that till date, only 44 bags of Pan Masala and 14 bags of Zarda are recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner No.2 but rest of the stolen articles are yet to be recovered by the I.O. In this context, Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it cannot be a case of any organized crime and Section 111(2) of the BNS, 2023 cannot be added at this stage. No charge is framed against the present petitioners to consider that this was an organized crime wherein these two petitioners were also involved. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary. It reveals from the case diary that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused petitioners and it is seen that these two petitioners are also involved in similar kind of offence along with Page No.# 4/4 some other co-accused persons and considering the nature of offence and the prayer for adding Section 310(2) of the BNS, 2023 was made, which was accordingly allowed by the learned Trial Court. Considering all these aspects of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation and that further custodial interrogation may be required to unearth some more facts in the present case to grant bail to the present accused petitioners only considering the length of detention. In view of this, I do not find it to be justified to allow the petitioner to go on bail at this stage and accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected. Return back the case diary forthwith. JUDGE . Comparing Assistant