Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010060752026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./876/2026 JALAL HOQUE AND ANR S/O ABDUL HOQUE VILL- DHANANDHA P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, 2: NUR ZAMAL KHAN @ NURJAMAL KHAN S/O MOMREJ KHAN VILL- BHERAGAON P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA PIN- 78130 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. M R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 02.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners Page No.# 2/3 as well as Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioners, namely, Jalal Hoque and Nur Zamal Khan @ Nur Jamal Khan, praying for grant of bail in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No.42/2026 under Sections 331(3)/305(a) of the BNS Act. 3. The case was registered based on an ejahar lodged by one Dr. R. K. Nath of Barpeta Medical College and Hospital with the allegation that a theft occurred in his house at 6:02 in the afternoon while he was not there and a bag containing Rs.5/- lakhs was stolen along with some documents. His wife and maid were present at that time in the house. 4. The present petitioners were arrested during investigation and also custodial examined. 5. Learned counsel submits that they are labourers and not involved with the occurrence. The petitioner No. 1 was arrested on 20.02.2026 and petitioner No.2, on 10.02.2026 respectively. 5. Case diary is received. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objecting to the bail submits that they were found loitering around the house at the relevant time by the wife of the victim; that, the stolen property is yet to be recovered; that, the bank transactions have also not been ascertained. 7. The IO has submitted a bail objection objecting to grant of bail at this stage. However, it emerges that the fingerprints taken so far has not matched with the persons. However, it has also emerged from the investigation that the petitioners have earlier worked in the house of the victim. And at the relevant time also they were seen at that area. 8. The IO has contended that involvement of other persons in such theft activities in the area are suspected and investigation into those aspects are going on. It is indicated in the case diary that upon apprehension of such other associates, some confrontation might have to be done and therefore, bail at this stage is opposed. The tower down data is also stated to be in the process and not yet received. Page No.# 3/3 9. In the given facts and circumstances, the bail petition stands rejected at this stage. 10. Return back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant