Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010039702025 2025:GAU-AS:2112 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./511/2025 ABDUL MALEK S/O LATE INSAN ALI R/O VILL- 4 NO.BHARAGAON, P.S. BAGHBAR DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SAIKIA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 28.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Saikia, 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, Abdul Malek, who has been detained behind the bars since 13.02.2025 (for the last 16 days), in connection with Garchuk P.S. Case No. 33/2025, under Section 303(2)/317(2) of BNS, 2023. 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 one Lalchand Ali is used for keeping stolen properties. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and a search was conducted in the scrap yard of the Lalchand Ali. 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. That during interrogation the apprehended accused Lalchand Ali had disclosed that there are some other scrap yard in Guwahati which are receiving stolen properties from thieves and on the basis of such information, the present petitioner was arrested. 5. During search of the scrap yard of which the present petitioner is stated to be the Manager, few articles were seized like, nylon rope, iron net, G.I. iron wire, iron plate, plastic electric switch board were recovered from the scrap yard. The petitioner could not account for the same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 16 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 16 days. 10. 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. 11. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go Page No.# 4/4 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. 12. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. 13. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant