Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010154732026 2026:GAU-AS:10906 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2108/2026 SRI AVINASH GOWALA S/O BIJJO GOWALA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FATAPUKAR,P.S. RAIGANJ, DISTRICT JALPAIGURI,(WEST BENGAL) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z HUSSAIN, MR. D K AGARWALA,MS B B AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 06.08.2026 Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting regular bail to the accused/applicant, i.e, Sri Avinash Page No.# 2/6 Gowala, who was arrested on 08.05.2026 in connection with Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 95/2026, registered under Sections 3(5)/ 304(2)/ 309(4) of the BNSS, 2023. 3. The case diary as called for has been received. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.05.2026, at about 2:30 p.m., while the informant was travelling by an e-rickshaw from Baihata Chariali Chowk towards AIIMS, Changsari, two unknown persons riding a motorcycle intercepted the e-rickshaw in front of the SBI Bank. Upon introducing themselves as Army personnel, they instructed the informant to remove her gold ornaments. Believing their representation, the informant removed her gold jewellery and placed the same in a bag. Thereafter, the said persons snatched the bag containing the jewellery and fled from the spot. On receipt of the said information, GDE No. 32 dated 07.05.2026 was registered, pursuant to which the present FIR came to be lodged and investigation was set in motion. 5. During the course of investigation, it allegedly surfaced that the present accused/applicant was one of the persons involved in the commission of the offence. He was thereafter apprehended from the State of West Bengal and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The accused/applicant has remained in judicial custody since 09.06.2026. 6. Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody for approximately 59 days. It is further contended that Page No.# 3/6 although the offence has been registered under Section 309(4) of the BNSS, 2023, the allegations contained in the FIR, even if accepted at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the said offence. 7. It is further submitted that the accused/applicant, who is a resident of the State of West Bengal, has been falsely implicated and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged occurrence. On the aforesaid grounds, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while vehemently opposing the prayer for bail, submits that the investigation has revealed, on the basis of the statements of witnesses as well as the CCTV footage collected during investigation, that the accused/applicant was one of the two persons who had dishonestly taken away the gold jewellery of the informant. It is further submitted that sufficient incriminating materials have surfaced indicating the involvement of the accused/applicant and that since the co-accused has not yet been apprehended, the applicant does not deserve the privilege of bail at this stage. 9. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the materials available on record, including the case diary. 10. A perusal of the case diary reveals that the statement of the accused/applicant has already been recorded by the Investigating Officer. The relevant digital evidence has been seized and subjected to investigation. The Call Detail Records (CDRs) pertaining to the mobile Page No.# 4/6 phone used by the accused/applicant have also been collected. At this stage, no material has been brought on record to indicate that the accused/applicant has any criminal antecedents. It further appears that the accused/applicant has remained in judicial custody since 09.06.2026, i.e., for about 59 days. 11. The prosecution has placed reliance upon the statements of witnesses and the CCTV footage to contend that the accused/applicant was one of the two persons involved in the commission of the alleged offence. This Court is conscious of the gravity of the accusation. However, while considering an application for bail, the gravity of the offence is not the sole consideration but also the need of custodial interrogation. 12. Having regard to the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant no longer appears to be necessary. The principal investigative steps, including collection of digital evidence and analysis of the Call Detail Records, have already been completed. The prosecution has also not been able to point out any specific circumstance indicating that, if enlarged on bail, the accused/applicant is likely to tamper with the evidence, influence the witnesses, or evade the due process of law. The mere fact that the co-accused is yet to be apprehended, by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient ground to deny bail when the further custodial detention of the present accused is not shown to be necessary for the purposes of investigation. 13. It is well settled that pre-trial detention is not intended to operate as a measure of punishment. Even where a prima facie case is Page No.# 5/6 disclosed, the Court is required to balance the interest of a fair and effective investigation with the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Apex Court observed that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused during trial and not to subject him to punitive incarceration before conviction. 14. Having regard to the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused/applicant, the progress made in the investigation, the absence of any material indicating criminal antecedents, and the fact that no further custodial interrogation appears to be necessary, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused/applicant has succeeded in making out a case for grant of regular bail. 15. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused/applicant, named above, shall be released on bail furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Rangia, subject to the following conditions: i) That the accused/applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when call for; any violation thereof would automatically cancel the bail granted by this Court. ii) That the accused/applicant 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; Page No.# 6/6 iii) That the accused/applicant shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission. iv) The accused/applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Assam without informing the Investigating Officer until submission of the police report. v) The accused/applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and keep the same operational during the course of investigation. 16. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail in accordance with law. 17. Resultantly, the bail application stands disposed of. 18. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant