Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010267292025 2025:GAU-AS:17675 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3969/2025 SORUWAR ALOM AND 2 ORS S/O-LT. KUDDUSH ALI, VILLAGE-BORGHULI, P.O.-LALPOOL, P.S.- DALGAON, DISTRICT-DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784514. 2: IMRAN ALI S/O SIDDIK ALI VILLAGE- BORGHULI P.O.- LALPOOL P.S.- DALGAON DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784514. 3: ABU SAMA S/O JASIMUDDIN VILLAGE- PANIKHAITI P.O.- ROWTA P.S.- UDALGURI DISTRICT- UDALGURI ASSAM PIN- 784508 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, R DEB,M. BORUAH,MR. P MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 18.12.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused/petitioners, namely, Soruwar Alom, Imran Ali and Abu Sama, praying for grant of bail in connection with Rowta P.S. Case No.95/2025, registered under Sections 316(2)/317(4)/318(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. They were arrested on 07.10.2025. 3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 06.10.2025. The gist of the allegation is that the informant stated to the owner of the Bolero vehicle, which was given on rent to the FIR named accused petitioners on 28.06.2025 and on the next day, when he tried to contact him them on mobile, he could not do so, as the mobile was switched off. Thereafter, he visited their house several times, but found them absent, ultimately, leading him to file this FIR. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out correctly that though the alleged incident is on 28.06.2025, the FIR was lodged on 06.10.2025, after a delay of about 3 ½ months. 5. It submitted that the accused petitioners have already completed 73 days in pre-trail detention and the statutory period is 90 days only with regard to the provision of Section 317 (4) of BNS corresponding to earlier Section 413 IPC Page No.# 3/4 pertaining to habitually dealing with stolen property. 6. The case diary has been received and the investigation has progressed but implicating materials have been found against the petitioners, inasmuch as it has been found that they have taken such vehicle from not only the petitioner but from other persons and sold them. Prima facie, the investigation has revealed incriminating materials with regard to cheating and/or criminal breach of trust. 7. Section 317 of the BNS may be reproduced herein below:- Section 317 BNS: Stolen Property 1. Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft or extortion or robbery or cheating, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as “stolen property”, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India, but, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property. 2. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 3. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 4. Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 5. Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of Page No.# 4/4 either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 8. From the materials available, it appears that prima facie the vehicles were taken on rent and subsequently illegally converted by way of sale. 9. In common parlance, a stolen property may be understood as property, which has been a subject of theft or robbery or dacoity. However, under Section 317 (1) BNS, the definition of stolen property is wider and that stolen property is defined as a property, the possession of which has been obtained through theft or extortion or robbery or cheating and property, which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed. 10. A caveat is also added in Section 317(1) that if the such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to its possession, then it ceases to be stolen property. Therefore, in the present matter, the penal provisions of both cheating and criminal breach of trust have been given and therefore, as per the definition, the vehicle in question, prima facie would be a stolen property. 11. Considering the nature of the allegations and the materials and keeping in mind that the investigation is in progress - it would be more prudent to refuse bail at this stage, while allowing the investigation to go to its logical conclusion. 12. In such view of the matter, the bail petition stands rejected. 13. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant