Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010193772026 2026:GAU-AS:14610 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2163/2026 JAHIRUL ISLAM KHAN S/O LATE JALAL UDDIN KHAN R/O VILL ALITANGANI P.S. JURIA, DIST.NAGAON,ASSAM PHONE NO. 98640-44267 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS, MS. P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 30.09.2026 1. Heard Ms. P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam. 2. By way of this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Lamding GRPS Case No. 54/2026 registered under Sections 303(2)/351(2)/351(3) and 117(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner was enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail in Page No.# 2/3 connection with the said case vide order dated 10.09.2026 subject to the condition that he would appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of the order. When the matter was taken up on the last occasion, i.e., on 22.09.2026 the learned APP upon perusal of the case diary submitted that the petitioner had not appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the interim pre-arrest bail order. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer on several occasions but his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer on one pretext or another. In view of the conflicting submissions, this Court vide its order dated 22.09.2026, directed the Investigating Officer to prepare a report regarding the aforesaid allegations and submit the same before this Court. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP submits that the Investigating Officer has submitted a report stating that the petitioner had not appeared before him for recording his statement earlier. However, the report also indicates that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 26.09.2026 and his statement was accordingly recorded. 5. Be that as it may, as regards the merits of the case it is seen that the FIR was lodged by the informant alleging inter alia that he along with another person was travelling from Agartala to Hojai carrying a piece of gold entrusted to him by his uncle. On 18.08.2026 at around 12:30 p.m. a police party conducted checking in a group and left after completing the checking. Thereafter, the petitioner armed with a metal detector approached the informant alone and asked him to proceed to the washroom along with his bag. It is further alleged that upon detecting the piece of gold being carried by the Page No.# 3/3 informant, the petitioner slapped him and took away the gold while threatening him not to disclose the incident to anyone. It is also alleged that the petitioner pointed a gun at the informant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a constable and was not carrying a firearm at the relevant time. Therefore, there was no question of his pointing a gun at the informant. She further submits that in a train carrying numerous passengers, it would not have been possible for police personnel to snatch the gold from the informant and threaten him as alleged. 7. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP for the State submits upon perusal of the case diary that the other police personnel who were also involved in checking the passengers stated that the petitioner was carrying a metal detector and had asked the informant to go to the washroom. However, they did not state anything about what transpired thereafter. 8. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and more so in view of the fact that the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence is reflected in both the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner the privilege of pre-arrest bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the interim order stands vacated. 10. The petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant