Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7951 (GAU)

LALCHAN ALI ALIAS LAICHAND ALI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./461/2025 · 2025-02-27

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010035402025 2025:GAU-AS:2111 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./461/2025 LALCHAN ALI ALIAS LAICHAND ALI S/O. ABDUL RAHIM,R/O- BALABHITA P,O.- JARABARI P.S.- HOWLY DIST - BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MD. A KUDDUS,MR. A.H. MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 28.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Lalchan Ali @ Lalchand Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 03.02.2025 (for the last 25 days), in connection with Garchuk P.S. Case No. 33/2025, under Section 303(2)/317(2) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that one Rinku Moni Boroah, SI of Police had lodged an FIR on 03.02.2025 before the Officer-In-Charge of Garchuk Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through reliable sources that the scrap yard owner by the present petitioner is used for keeping stolen properties. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and a search was conducted in the scrap yard of the present petitioner. During search of the scrap yard a huge quantity of electric copper wire suspected to be stolen property was recovered therefrom. The appropriate value of the recovered stolen articles were assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 25 days and considering the nature of the case as well as the period of detention, his further custodial detention may not be necessary. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, namely, Mr. R.J. Baruah has produced the Case Diary of Garchuk P.S. Case No. 33/2025, and has submitted that the suspected stolen properties seized from the scrap yard of the present petitioner and the petitioner was unable to account for the same. Page No.# 3/4 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the investigation is at initial stage. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case, no owner of the stolen property had lodged any FIR and the materials recovered from the scrap yard of the present petitioner is only suspected to be stolen property, as the petitioner has failed to account for the same. Moreover, the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 25 days. 8. Considering the nature of accusation made against the present petitioner as well as the materials available in the Case Diary and the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary, if he cooperates with the Investigating Officer. 9. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M ) with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. Page No.# 4/4 10. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. 11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant