Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010189322026 2026:GAU-AS:13745 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2569/2026 HADIL ALI AND 2 ORS SON OF LATE LUTFUR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GALIA P.O- GAREMARI, P.S.-HOWLY DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781314 2: SAFIKUL ISLAM SON OF LATE GULAM GUFUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RASULPUR P.O.- KADONG P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781314 3: SAHIDUL ISLAM ALIAS SHAHIDUL ISLAM S/O- LT. ABDUI AJIJ RESIDENT OF VILLAGEJAHURPAM BAHMURA P.O- JAHURPAM P.S- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, R KHANOM,R BEGUM,MR. R ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This bail application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is preferred by three accused, namely, Hadil Ali, Safikul Islam and Sahidul Islam @ Shahidul Islam, who have been languishing in jail hazot, in connection with Rangia P.S. Case No.229/2026 under Section 331(4)/305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR, lodged by one Tapash Banik, on 22.07.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 22.07.2026, is that his father has a jewellery shop, namely, "Banik Jewellers" at Tulsibari Chowk and on the last night, by taking advantage of the darkness, some unknown miscreants committed theft the locker of the jewellery by breaking three nos. of lock of the main door and the grill and there was large quantity of gold and silver ornaments in the said locker. 4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused submits that this is the 2nd bail application and the first one has been rejected vide order, dated 21.08.2026, in Bail Appln. No.2283/2026, and he submits that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 23.07.2026, and the accused No.3 was arrested on 27.07.2026, and since then they are languishing in jail hazot and that earlier they were also taken into police custody and they have sufficiently been interrogated and nothing has been recovered from their possession and that they will cooperate with the investigating agency and considering the period of detention, Mr. Ahmed has contended to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional P.P., has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that investigation is going on and the I.O. has collected some Page No.# 3/3 incriminating materials against the present accused persons and some of the co-accused are absconding and some of the stolen articles are yet to be recovered and under such circumstances, if the accued persons are enlarged on bail, then it would cause serious prejudice to the investigating agency and therefore, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. 7. The case diary reveals that the I.O. has collected some incriminating materials against the present accused persons. The investigation is still going on and some of the co-accused are yet to be arrested and also some of the stolen articles are yet to be recovered. And if at this stage, the privilege of bail is granted to the accused persons, then it will cause prejudice to the investigating agency. And in that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused persons and accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed. 8. The case diary be returned. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE