Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010170012026 2026:GAU-AS:13645 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2312/2026 ANURAG CHOUDHURY AND ANR S/O- SHYAM CHOUDHURY, R/O SHIVPUR, PS MARIANI, DIST JORHAT, ASSAM 2: PRANDEEP BARUAH ALIAS PRANJEET S/O- BICHITRA BARUAH R/ONATUNMATI SUKAFANAGAR P.S MARIANI DIST JORHAT ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, MS. A K CHOPHI,MR. A BHARDWAZ,A GHOSAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 15.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 153/2026 registered under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/319(2)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners were arrested and remanded to custody on 28.07.2026 was lodged by the informant stating inter alia that he had rented out his car to a known brother’s agency and that on 24.07.2026 he received a call from the said agency requesting him to rent out his car for travelling to Mushalpur. The informant further stated that one Naba Jyoti Medhi showed him his Aadhaar card and took his car on rent for two days. He, however, stated that even after the expiry of two days the car was not returned to him. Upon checking the GPS location of the car he found that the car was being driven towards Golaghat and subsequently came to know that the car was being taken with the intention of selling it. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no connection with the offence alleged by the informant and that they were apprehended while travelling in a different vehicle. It is further submitted that the petitioners had contacted the said Naba Jyoti Medhi for renting a car for some other purpose and that while they were travelling in a different vehicle the police apprehended and arrested them. 5. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP, on the other hand, upon perusal of the case diary submits that the informant’s car was being followed by a Bolero vehicle and that while intercepting the informant’s car, the police found the petitioners travelling in the said Bolero vehicle and arrested them on the ground that they were involved in the sale of the informant’s car. He submits that the involvement Page No.# 3/3 of the petitioners in the alleged offence is evident from the fact that they were following the informant’s car on the same route. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, more so in view of the fact that the petitioners were not found to be occupants of the informant’s car, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioners on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with one local surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for, (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. Accordingly, this Bail Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant