Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149762026 2026:GAU-AS:11014 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1647/2026 RIPAN CH PAUL S/O GOUR CH. PAUL VILLAGE LAYASHUR, P.O. GUAGACHA, P.S. GOBARDHANA, DISTRICT BAKSA ASSAM, PIN 781313 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, J S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. J.S Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner, namely, Ripan Ch. Paul, has filed this application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, with prayer for pre-arrest bail in connection with Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 100/2026 registered under Sections 305/331(3) of BNS. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged on 09.07.2026 before the Officer-in-Charge of Patacharkuchi Police Station by one Monoj Kumar Deka, the Secretary of Satra Management Committee stating, inter alia, that in the night hours of 07.07.2026, a theft had taken place in the Sri Sri Madan Mohon Gohain Thaan. It is further submitted by the informant that on the next morning at around 6 AM, when the Naamgharia entered the Naamghar, he saw that the articles had been stolen during the previous night. It was also alleged that some unknown person had stolen the articles, viz., DVR of CCTV, one Monitor, 120 brass horai and other articles. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police, upon investigation, had found out the articles and had arrested five accused persons. He further stated that on interrogation of the arrested accused persons, the name of the petitioner surfaced and the police went to his shop and recovered few articles connected with the offence. However, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner submits that the petitioner had bought those articles from the sellers and he had no knowledge that the articles were stolen articles. As such, he submits that the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into the offence and prays for bail. 5. Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon perusal of the case diary, submits that the co-accused had named the petitioner to have bought the articles and that some of the articles which were stolen from the Naamghar were found in the possession of the petitioner, and on the said information, the police, in fact, had gone to the shop of the petitioner and recovered certain articles. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels and on noticing the fact that there is nothing to show that the petitioner had the knowledge that the articles that he bought from others were stolen articles, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the above-named petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) only with one local surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority with following conditions: i) the petitioner shall appear before the I.O within a period of 10(ten) days from today; ii) the petitioner shall not influence the witnesses connected with the offence; iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence collected in the present case ; Page No.# 4/4 iv) the petitioner shall not leave the place of residence without the permission of the Arresting Authority. 7. On breach of any of the bail conditions, bail order shall stand cancelled. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant