Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010197582026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2685/2026 URMILA TIWARI AND 5 ORS. W/O- LATE RAMASANKAR TIWARI RESIDENT OF B/L-4, SATGAON, PRAGATI NAGAR, PS-SATGAON, DIST- KAMRP (M),ASSAM 2: RITWIK RANJAN PAUL S/O- LATE SURESH CH. PAUL RESIDENT OF SATGAON PRAGATI NAGAR B/L-5 PS-SATGAON DIST- KAMRPM ASSAM. 3: RAKESH TIWARI RESIDENT OF SATGAON PRAGATI NAGAR B/L-1 PS-SATGAON DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 4: JAFOR HOSSAIN S/O- RAJI HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF AMBARI BALTIPARA NEAR 2 NO. MASJID PS- SATGAON DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 5: JAVED HUSSAIN S/O- RAJI HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF AMBARI BATLIPARA NEAR 2 NO. MASJID Page No.# 2/4 PS- SATGAON DIST- KAMRUPM ASSAM 6: SHADAB HUSSAIN ALIAS SADAM HUSSAIN S/O- RAJI HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF AMBARI BATLIPARA NEAR 2 NO. MASJID PS- SATGAON DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P., ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A HAWARI, MS. SHASHI K. K.,MR. AMRIT NATH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 11.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Hawari, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Satgaon P.S. Case No. 103/2026 registered under Sections 329(4)/324(5)/305(a)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners were arrested and were put behind the bars for the last 16 days was lodged by the owner of the shops on 27.08.2026 stating inter alia that she has a land near Satgaon Rail line wherein she has nine numbers of shops and out of the same, six numbers of shops were given on rent and three shops Page No.# 3/4 were still vacant. The informant further stated that she had not given those shops on rent but the petitioners went to occupy the shops but she had filled the shops with goods and locked them. She thereafter stated that on 27.08.2026 in the morning hours, she found the locks of the shop broken and that she stated that the petitioners had stolen the goods and that they had locked the shops by their own lock. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the story projected in the FIR is a concocted story and the real story is that the petitioners had already taken the shops on rent and that the owner had renovated the said shops and during that time, the petitioners were not running the shops and that later when they came to occupy the shops, the informant refused and filed the FIR. He further stated that goods which were kept inside the shop were of the petitioners. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the offence is writ large in the contents of an FIR which says that it was the petitioners, who had broken the locks and stole the goods and they put their own locks. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that an FIR was also lodged by the petitioners and there was an agreement renting out the shops to the petitioners, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioners on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one local surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Kamrup(M) under the following conditions: i) the petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as Page No.# 4/4 and when called for. ii) the petitioners will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) the petitioners will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the concerned Court. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant