Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010167662026 2026:GAU-AS:14214 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1871/2026 AARIPI NAGA PHANEENDRA KUMAR ALIAS AARIPI PHANEENDRA KUMAR SON OF DURGA PRASADRESIDENT OF 4-34, KURUMADDALI, VTC PAMARRU, DISTRICT KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 521157 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BORUAH, MS. M BHUYAN,MS. P BORAH,MR. M ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 24.09.2026 Heard Mr. K. Boruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Serfanguri P.S. Case No.18/2026, registered under Section 303(2), 316(3), 61(2) Page No.# 2/3 as well as 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged by one, Baharul Islam, stating inter alia that, he is a businessman and he supplies “Maize” product to the different companies of West Bengal and that, he with the intention to supply the said products, had loaded the same in a vehicle owned by the petitioner and send it to the concerned company in the State of West Bengal. He however, stated that the vehicle driven by three drivers who were also accused persons in the said FIR had looted the product from the vehicle and had also taken away the cash money that he had paid as advance for the said transfer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he had given his vehicle to transport, the articles from Assam to West Bengal and had assigned the drivers for the same but he has no connection with stealing of the articles or of taking away the cash amount. 5. Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned APP, on perusal of the Case Diary, submits that the petitioner is, in fact, the owner of the vehicle and was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. He further submits that only the drivers were present at the relevant time. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the all the parties, more so in view of the fact that, there are no allegations against the owner that, he knew the occurrence, this Court enlarges the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Page No.# 3/3 Arresting Authority under the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall appear before the Arresting Authority within 15 days from the date of this order. (ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witness connected with the alleged case; and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave their residence without prior permission of the Arresting Authority. 7. The AB Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant