Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010270212024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3356/2024 MD SOFIKUL ISLAM @ SOFIKUL ISLAM S/O MD. SUKCHAND ALI R/O VILL- HABLAKHA P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S ISLAM, S RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 05.02.2025 Heard Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Page No.# 2/2 Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of Azara P.S. Case No.203/2024 under Section 303(2)/316(3) of the BNS, 2023. 3. On 27.09.2024, goods were loaded in a Truck bearing Registration No.AS-28AC- 1469. The Truck was to go to Agartala for delivery of goods. The informant later on was informed by the driver that the vehicle was stuck in a traffic jam at Sonapur. After that, the mobile phone of the driver was found switched off. 4. In this connection, police arrested four persons who are named in the FIR. 5. The Case Diary reveals that these four persons have informed police that the goods carried by the aforesaid Truck were stolen and sold in the market with the help of the present petitioner and another person called Ajmat Ali. 6. The petitioner submits that he has been unnecessarily robbed in this case because at one point of time, he shared their rented house with one of the arrested persons namely, Majid Ali. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 8. Case Diary reveals that the present petitioner is involved in the theft of goods of the Truck and the goods were sold in the market by the present petitioner with the help of another person called Ajmat Ali. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary in this case to find out the actual truth of the case. 9. This Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for allowing the privilege of anticipatory bail. For this reason, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected and disposed of. Return the case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant