Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010222212025 2025:GAU-AS:13528 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3224/2025 BHAGWAN SINGH S/O BHANWAR SINGH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF RAVANA RAJPOUT MOHALLA VILLAGE - LALPURA, PO - KOLASAR, PS - SALASAR, DISTRICT - CHURU, RAJASTHAN - 331507. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 15TH MILE, BARNYHAT, PS - SONAPUR, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M HAZARIKA, MS V V THANYU,MR D KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 26.09.2025 Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Khan, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Page No.# 2/4 (BNSS), 2023 for granting of bail to the accused-applicant who was arrested on 13.09.2025 in connection with Basistha P.S. Case no. 469/2025 under Section 305(e)/317(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. The gist of the case is that an FIR was lodged by one Sri Nabajit Kalita, of Basistha Police Station alleging that upon receipt of some information, the police has intercepted a truck bearing Registration No. AS 01 PC 5964 at Lalmati at 9:45 am. On inspection, 600 bags of PDS rice were recovered from the truck which were being transported without any valid documents relating to sale, purchase or transportation. Accordingly, a GDE was made vide Basistha Police Station GDE No. 10 dated 11.09.2025 and the police had apprehended the driver of the vehicle namely, Abdul Hai as well as the owner of the vehicle, Anowar Hussain on the same date. It was alleged in the FIR that the driver and the owner in connivance with others had been illegally transporting PDS rice, which was made for public distribution, for unlawful business and thereby, depriving the poor beneficiaries of their rightful Government supply. After registration of the FIR, on the basis of the statements given by the driver and the owner of the vehicle, the accused-applicant who is a worker in a Godown based out of 15th Mile, Barnyhat, Meghalaya has been arrested on 13.09.2025. The accused-applicant was thereafter produced before the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati on 14.09.2025 and the learned CJM allowed police custody of the accused-applicant for two days. On 16.09.2025, the accused-applicant was produced again before the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati and the learned CJM sent him to judicial custody on the same date and since then, he is in judicial custody. He was produced again before the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati on 24.09.2025. A bail application was moved on behalf of the accused- applicant in the same date which was rejected by the learned Additional CJM, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. Since then, he is in judicial custody. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant is employed in a warehouse at Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya wherein food commodities are received from various suppliers across the Country, are stored and preserved for further distribution. She submits that the accused-applicant is involved only in loading and unloading of the consignments and he neither has any knowledge or nor has any connection Page No.# 3/4 with the seized PDS rice bags. She submits that the accused-applicant is already in judicial custody since 16.09.2025 and thereafter the Investigating Authority has not sought for any police custody of the accused-applicant for further interrogation. Therefore, she submits that since his statement is already been recorded by the Investigating Authority as well as statements of the other two accused persons also have been recorded, further custodial interrogation in this matter may not be required. She further submits that the accused- applicant will abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit in the event of his release on bail. 5. The learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there are incriminating materials against the accused-applicant, which can be seen from the case diary as well as the statement of the accused-applicant recorded by the Investigating Authority. In view of the aforesaid, she submits that at this Stage, the prayer for bail may not be granted to the accused applicant. 6. This Court has gone through the case diary as well as the statements recorded by the police of the two accused persons named in the FIR as well as the accused-applicant. This Court has also heard the submissions made by the respective counsels appearing for the parties. After going through the aforesaid materials and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the Investigating Authority has already recorded the statements of the two accused persons named in the FIR as well as the accused-applicant and further, the Investigating Authority has not sought for any custodial interrogation, this is a fit case wherein the accused-applicant should be allowed to go on bail. Accordingly, this Court is allowing this bail application with the direction that the accused-applicant to be released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of like nature which should include one Government surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Authority. 7. It is further directed the instant bail shall be subject to the following conditions :- (i) The accused herein shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati without prior permission from the said Court. Page No.# 4/4 (ii) That the accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and fully co-operate in the investigation of the case. (iii) The accused herein shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness, so as to dissuade such witness from making truthful disclosure of the incident involved in the matter. 8. Accordingly, this bail petition is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant