Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010198142026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2713/2026 RAMJAN ALI S/O LATE NUR HUSSAIN, R/O FUHURATALI, P.S SIPAJHAR, DISTRICT DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MR. J JAKARIA,MD IMRAN,MR. MD IMDAD,MR. J ALI,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 14.09.2026 Heard Mr. SM Abdullah P, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 111/2026 registered under Section 331(4)/305(a) Page No.# 2/3 of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested was lodged on 28.07.2026 by one Asraful Alam stating inter alia that when he and his family members were absent in his house, some unknown miscreants has committed house breaking and theft of valuable articles. He stated that he came to know about the theft on 17.07.2026, when he came back to his house in the evening. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of the petitioner was not there in the said offence inasmuch as he has placed the forwarding report, wherein it was stated on verification of the CCTV footage, three accused persons were arrested and that the arrested accused persons had stated in their statement that they had kept a stolen lenovo laptop in the residence of the petitioner. He submits that apart from the same, there are no allegations against the petitioner and the same does not show his complicity. 4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the stolen article i.e. lenovo laptop was seized from the petitioner and as such, the same shows his involvement in the offence. He further submits that the Case Diary be called for in order to see the real complicity of the petitioner. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that the only allegation against the petitioner being a stolen article found in his residence without any substantiating materials, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Karmup(M), under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when Page No.# 3/3 called for. ii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the concerned Court. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant