Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010070302026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/739/2026 SULTAN CHOUDHURY S/O AMIN UDDIN CHOUDHURY, R/O SUNAPUR PT III, PO SUNAPUR, PS KATIGORAH, DIST CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788817 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, MR. D K AGARWALA,SHAHANAWAZ CHOWDHURY,ASHRAFUL BORBHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 21.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest Bail to accused/petitioner in connection with Azara P.S. Case No. 32/2026 registered u/s 305(b)/305(c)/318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of the BNSS, 2023. 3. As per the FIR, the informant had loaded 500 bags of peas in a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-KC-6152 from Azara Railway Station for transportation to Imphal, Manipur, which was driven by the present petitioner. The vehicle had reached Nagaon on 16.10.2026 and thereafter, the petitioner became untraceable as his mobile phone was switched off. 4. Pursuant to the FIR, an investigation was carried out. It transpired that the owner of the truck, one Md. Aslom Uddin, in conspiracy with the petitioner and other persons, sold the consignment at Silchar. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner was driving the vehicle with the consignment, the vehicle developed technical defects while traveling via Doboka and upon the instructions of the owner, he kept proceed until the vehicle suffered a major mechanical failure upon reaching Dilai, Karbi Anglong District and becoming immobile. Thereafter, on the permission of the owner, the petitioner had left the vehicle with the brother-in-law of the owner and reached his home on 19.03.2026. Therefore, he Page No.# 3/3 had no possession or knowledge regarding the consignment or the vehicle. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted with reference to the Case Diary, that there is sufficient material indicating that the owner of the vehicle, in conspiracy with the present petitioner and others, misappropriated the consignment and sold it in Silchar. The vehicle was subsequently repossessed by the finance company. 7. It is quite evident that the petitioner had custody of the consignment, and it was from his custody that the said consignment went missing. There is no material in the Case Diary to support the petitioner claim that he left the vehicle in the custody of the owner’s brother-in-law. 8. Having regard to the above, and considering the fact that the consignment is yet to be recovered, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary. Consequently, the prayer for bail stands rejected and the petition stands dismissed. 9. Send back the Case Dairy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant