Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010182412025 2025:GAU-AS:12054 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2678/2025 NAJRUL ISLAM AND ANR S/O SAIDUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- AND P.O. BANKUBHANGA P.S. KALGACHIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319. 2: SHAHJAHAN ALI S/O FULCHAN R/O VILL- BALIKURI P.O. BALIKURI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781319 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MR. F A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 05-09-2025 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, 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, praying for granting regular bail to the accused/petitioners who were arrested in connection with this case on 06.08.2025 and since then they were languishing in the jail in connection with Ghograpar P.S. Case No. 105/2024 u/s 126(2)/115(2)/310(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to GR No. 672/2024). 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they are not at all connected with the alleged offence. They were not aware about the pendency of the case and came to know about the same only when the NBWA were issued against the present two petitioners who were shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet. After coming to know about the pendency of NBWA they also approached this Court with a petition for interim protection but they were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court below with an appropriate application for bail and in pursuant to the said order they appeared and surrendered before the Court on 06.08.2025 with a prayer for bail. But, the prayer for bail was not considered and they were remanded to judicial custody. Since last 30 days both the petitioners are in custody. He further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a student of BA 4th semester and the petitioner no. 2 is a shopkeeper and they are the permanent resident of their addressed residence and hence there is no possibility of absconding by the Page No.# 3/3 present petitioners. They are ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date as fixed by the Court and to contest the case accordingly. 5. Mr. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present two accused/petitioners and they were very much present at the time of incident in the said vehicle, on the day of alleged dacoity. He further submitted that the present petitioners remained absconded at the time of investigation and only after filing of the charge-sheet they surrendered before the learned Court below. He further submitted that the case is still at the stage of evidence and some of the co-accused are yet to be apprehended and considering the conduct of the accused as they are shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet, their prayer for bail may not be considered at this stage. 6. Hearing the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that the petitioners were present at the time of incident and was available in the vehicle. Thus considering the conduct of the accused/petitioners were absconding till filing of the charge-sheet, I feel that probability of absconding cannot be denied at this stage and hence the prayer for bail for both the petitioners rejected at this stage. In view of this the bail petition stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant