Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010108892026 2026:GAU-AS:10072 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1165/2026 BINOD KUMAR SAH S/O SHRI KISHUN SAH, R/O DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H BETALA, J GOSWAMEE,MR. ADARSH KR. JAIN,P AGARWAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 22.07.2026 Heard Mr. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 28/2026 arising out of FIR No. 0028 dated 24.03.2026 Page No.# 2/3 under Section 123, 305 & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. On the basis of a Zero FIR lodged on 24.03.2026 in West Bengal by Dr. Subhajit Das, an investigation was commenced into the allegation that while the complainant was travelling by the Kanchanjunga Express, two of his co-passengers offered him a chocolate. After consuming it, the complainant became dizzy and fell asleep. Upon waking up, he found that his valuable items including a diamond ring, a gold chain, a mobile phone, a laptop, and a wristwatch, with a total value of Rs. 5,27,000/- were missing. 4. In the course of the investigation, the police arrested two persons, namely Kalimuddin Sheikh and Nur Jamal Sheikh, who led them to the house of the present petitioner. It emerged from the statements of the arrested accused that they sold the stolen articles to the present petitioner. However, no recovery was made from the house of the petitioner, who was found absent there from. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police are seeking to arrest the petitioner solely on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishan Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2025) INSC 725, such statements cannot be looked into for the purpose of the present application for anticipatory bail. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary and submitted that, in addition to the statements of the co-accused, it has emerged that one of the accused, namely Nur Jamal Sheikh, was in contact with the mobile number of the present petitioner. Several calls were recorded in the CDR between the two on 10.03.2026, which was the very day after the alleged occurrence on 09.03.2026. 7. From the above, it appears that in addition to the statement of the co-accused, there are other Page No.# 3/3 materials linking the arrested accused persons with the present petitioner in connection with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner, in his bail application, has nowhere stated that the arrested accused was a person previously known to him with whom he had any telephonic contact. Rather, during the course of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically stated that the arrested accused persons are not known to the petitioner. Therefore, the telephonic conversation between accused Nur Jamal Sheikh and the petitioner immediately on the day after the occurrence prima facie indicates the culpability of the petitioner. 8. Therefore, I find force in the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, besides the statement of the co-accused, there are other incriminating materials against the petitioner. In view of the same, I do not find the present case to be a fit one for the grant of pre-arrest bail, as custodial interrogation is necessary in cases of such nature to effect recovery of the stolen items. 9. In view of the above, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant