Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010050302025 2025:GAU-AS:3253 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./696/2025 BIKRAM SAHANI S/O BIJAY SAHANI R/O S.S. ROAD, LAKHTOKIA P.S. PANBAZAR DIST.KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MR. S MUNIR,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24.03.2025 Heard Mr. S. M. Abdullah P., learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No. 78/2025, under Sections 303(2)/313 of the BNS, 2023. It is submitted by Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the Case Diary has not been received and it is intimated by the I.O. that he could not send the Case Diary as he was busy in law and order duty and accordingly he prayed for some time to produce the Case Diary. Mr. Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioner is no way connected in the alleged offence of theft. However, it is a fact that one person named Rahul gave a mobile handset for repairing to his shop and at the time of receiving the mobile handset, he did not inquired about the documents of the said mobile handset. But, subsequently, it was found that the said mobile handset was stolen one and that has been seized from his possession. Further he submitted that the accused/petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2025 and thus, the I.O. got sufficient time for his custodial interrogation and therefore his further custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. More so, the accused/petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the I.O. and co-operate in the further investigation of this case. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that from the Forwarding Report itself, it is seen that the accused/petitioner is a habitual offender of receiving stolen property and at the time of investigation, about 70 numbers of mobile handsets were seized from his possession which were without any documents. He further submitted that the Case Diary will be Page No.# 3/4 required to know the other facts of the case and accordingly raised objection in granting bail to the present accused/petitioner without perusal of the Case Diary. Mr. Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted in this regard that there may be other mobile handsets as it is repairing shop and from the seizure list, it is seen that only 1 (one) mobile handset was seized from the possession of the accused/petitioner. More so, he submitted that the notice issued to him under Section 47 BNS also does not reveal any grounds of arrest which is mandatorily required. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, without going into the further detail of the merit of the case only considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Bikram Sahani, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when called for; Page No.# 4/4 (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior permission. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant