Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010202102026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2784/2026 RATUL HUSSAIN S/O MD JAMAL UDDIN , R/O KADAMPURI , PS RUPAHI ,DIST. NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MR. MD IMDAD,MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,G KAUR,MR. J JAKARIA,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. SM Abdullah P, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has sought for bail in connection with Samaguri PS Case No. 263/2026 registered under Sections 329(4)/305(a) of Page No.# 2/3 BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested and is put behind the bars on 30.08.2026 was lodged by one Jugesh Sharma stating inter alia that on 26.08.2026, when he and his wife and other members of the family were not present at his residence, unknown miscreants entered through the back door of the house and stole various gold and silver ornaments belonging to his wife and daughter. It is also alleged that the miscreants had stolen cash amount too. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and during investigation the petitioner along with his brother were arrested only on suspicion. He submits that in the forwarding report, it is stated that the petitioner and his younger brother were found loitering near the place of occurrence and on suspicion of their involvement in the theft, public wanted to apprehend them but they fled and that the police later on apprehended the petitioner along with his brother. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits by placing the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon by which the bail of the petitioner was rejected that the Court had seen the Case Diary and had found the materials against him. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that no articles were recovered from the petitioner and further that he was arrested only on suspicion, 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, Nagaon, under the following conditions: Page No.# 3/3 i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when 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