Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010220872025 2025:GAU-AS:13795 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3223/2025 ANOWAR HUSSAIN AND ANR S/O LT. NAYAN KHAN RESIDENT OF MONDIAKOPOHA, PO BARPETA, PS BARPETA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM 2: ABDUL HAI S/O NUR ISLAM RESIDENT OF PASONIA PAHAR PO JOGIGHOPA DISTRICT BONGAIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR K THAKUR,MR. S SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 15.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioners namely, 1. Anowar Hussain and 2. Abdul Hai, has prayed for bail in connection with Basistha P.S Case No. 469/2025, registered under Section 305(c)/317(2)/61(2) of BNS, R/W Section 7 of EC Act. 3. The case, as has been narrated in the FIR is that on receipt of the some information, the Police personnel apprehended a Truck bearing Registration No. AS-01PC-5964 at about 09.45 AM and on inspection, 600 bags of PDS rice were recovered, for which no valid documents relating to sale, purchase or transportation were produced. The driver of the vehicle i.e. Accused No. 2 was apprehended on the spot and after further enquiry, the owner of the vehicle, namely, Anowar Hussain i.e. the Accused No. 1 was also apprehended by the Police. Page No.# 3/4 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rice alleged to be PDS rice was found in the truck and had been validly purchased and in this regard, attention has been drawn to certain purchase receipts and the E-way bill. 5. It is also submitted and contended that this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the I.O and upon refusal, it was brought to the notice of the higher police authority but without any success. That thereupon, the matter was ventilated before the Police Accountability Commission. 6. Case diary has been received. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the documents submitted from the side of the accused petitioners have to be verified. 8. Nevertheless, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and progress of the investigation so far, I deem it fit to grant bail to the accused petitioners at this stage, also keeping in mind their pre-trial detention undergone already so far. 9. Accordingly, the above-named accused petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only each with one surety each of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Court with following conditions: (i) That they shall co-operate with the investigation ; (ii) That they shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. Page No.# 4/4 10. Return back the case diary. 11. Violation of bail conditions might entail cancellation of the bail. 12. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant