Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010194732026 2026:GAU-AS:13012 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2159/2026 SANKAR JYOTI SAIKIA @ SANKAR SAIKIA AND ANR SON OF LATE BANESWAR SAIKIA, RESIDENT OF JUNGLE BLOCK, MARIANI, P.S. MARIANI, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MEJENGANI, TITABAR, P.S. TITABAR, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM 2: SMTI. PRONAMI DUTTA WIFE OF SRI SANKAR JYOTI SAIKIA RESIDENT OF JUNGLE BLOCK MARIANI P.S. MARIANI DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MEJENGANI TITABAR P.S. TITABAR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P J DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 08.09.2026 Heard Mr P J Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Titabar PS Case No. 89/2026, under Sections 305(e)/331(4)/3(5)/317(4) of the BNS, 2023 3. The First Information Report in connection with which the petitioners are apprehending arrest, was lodged on 07.08.2026, by the headmistress of Srimanta Sankar Vidyapeeth, Titabar, stating inter alia, that on the night of 06.08.2026, electric wires were stolen from three different places within the said school. It was also stated that previously also, wires were stolen in similar manner. The Police, before registration of the said FIR, conducted an enquiry and during the enquiry, the Police found out from the CCTV Footage, attached to the said school that one person Sri Akash Manki was involved in the said offence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the enquiry, the name of the petitioners did not surface and only later, during the investigation of the case it was found out that one Mubarak had sold the stolen articles to the petitioner No. 1, who had a scrap shop. He further submits that petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and the scrap shop was registered in the name of the petitioner No. 2. He submits that both the petitioners have no knowledge that the said articles were stolen articles and as such, they are not involved in the said offence 5. Mr R J Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that knowledge on the part of the petitioners would be seen during the trial, but as of now, he submits that the investigation reveals that those stolen articles were found from the scrap Page No.# 3/3 shop of the petitioners. He has also placed the order dated 29.08.2026, by which the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, had rejected the bail application of the petitioners on the ground of incriminating materials being found in the Case Diary. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel, more so, in view of the fact that the complicity of the petitioners were not found, further, the knowledge with regard to the stolen articles is also not reflected, this Court deems it fit that the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each, with one local surety each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, under the following conditions:- i) the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 (ten) days from the date of the order; ii) the petitioners shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witnesses; and iii) the petitioners shall not leave their residence without prior permission of the Investigating Officer. 7. Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant