Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010072332026 2026:GAU-AS:5722 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1012/2026 RAKESH CHOUDHURY ALIAS RAHUL AND ANR S/O AJGAR ALI CHOUDHURY VILL- TENGNARBHITA, P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. 2: SORIFUL ISLAM S/O AKRAM ALI VILL- TENGNARBHITA P.S. GOSSAIGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S PRODHANI, MR Z RAHMAN,MR. A M KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 27-04-2026 Heard Mr. A. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Rakesh Choudhury @ Rahul and (ii) Soriful Islam in connection with Sessions T2 Case No. 21/2026 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, corresponding to GR Case No. 39/2026 arising out of Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 35/2026 registered under Sections 331(4)/305/317(4)/61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR along with the case diary has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Khan, learned counsel that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is a fact that the petitioner No.1 was alleged to have caught red handed by local people without any specific reason. However, both the petitioners are in custody since last 68 and 64 days respectively and hence, further custodial detention of the petitioners may not be required for the purpose of trial. 5. Both the petitioners being from the same locality, they will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed. There is some allegation Page No.# 3/5 against the petitioner No.1, who was stated to have caught red handed by public, but there is no such specific allegation against the petitioner No.2 and he has been implicated falsely and arrested in the present case. The case has already been charge sheeted and thus, there is no chance of hampering or tampering with the investigation of the case at this stage. Both the petitioners are ready and willing to produce the proper baillor and surety and will abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed on them. 6. Mr. Goswami, learned APP raised vehement objection and submitted that the bail prayer for the petitioners may not be considered at this stage. From the record as well as from the forwarding report it is seen that petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 committed two incident of decoity on the date of incident and while trying to commit decoity in the house of the informant, the petitioner No.1 was caught red handed by public. 7. He further submitted that from the forwarding report of the petitioner No.1 it is also seen that apart from this case, there are other seven numbers of other cases also pending against the petitioner No.1 for the same kind of offence. Petitioner No.2 is also involved in the alleged offence and on the night of the incident, he along with the petitioner No.1 and some others committed robbery/decoity in 2/3 houses on the same night of incident. Some of the theft articles were also recovered from the possession of the petitioners and there is every chance of their absconding, if they are granted with the privilege of bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami, learned APP submitted that the case is fixed for consideration of charge and till date, the prosecution could not examine any witnesses and hence, bail may not be considered at this stage as there is not only chance of absconding, but also there may be chance of hampering or Page No.# 4/5 tampering with the independent witnesses. 9. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and the case record as well as the annexures filed along with the petition. 10. From the forwarding report as well as other materials it is seen that these two petitioners alleged to have committed robbery/decoity in 2/3 houses on the night of the incident and on the date of the incident, the petitioner No.1 was also caught red handed by public. From the forwarding report it is also seen that this is not a simple case against the petitioner No.1, but there are other 8 numbers of cases are also pending for similar kind of offence. Petitioner No.2 is also fully involved in the alleged offence and was present along with petitioner No.1 while committing the offence. 11. So, considering all these aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that probability of absconding as well as hampering and tempering with the evidences of the independent witnesses cannot be denied at this stage. Further, from the statement of the accused petitioner itself it is seen that after committing the robbery/decoity in one jewelry shop at Gossaigaon town, they attempted to commit another theft/decoity in the jewelry shop of the informant, when the petitioner No.1 was caught red handed and the petitioner No.2 managed to escape from the place of occurrence. 12. Considering all these aspects of the case, conduct of the petitioner and the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners. 13. Accordingly this bail application of the petitioners, (i) Rakesh Choudhury @ Rahul and (ii) Soriful Islam in Sessions T2 Case No. Page No.# 5/5 21/2026 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, corresponding to GR Case No. 39/2026 arising out of Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 35/2026 registered under Sections 331(4)/305/317(4)/61(2) of BNS, 2023 stands rejected. 14. This bail application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant