Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010016322026 2026:GAU-AS:1814 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./283/2026 RAM CHANDRA DAS ALIAS PRANJAL DAS S/O SUN KUMAR DAS ALIAS CHANDAN, R/O HOUSE NO 14, NABAJYOTI NAGAR, PS SATGAON, DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MRS M ALOM,MR A T M HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10-02-2026 Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/4 Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 09.01.2026 in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 13/2026 u/s 305(a) of BNS Act. 3. Case Diary not received and no intimation is received from the I/O. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused/petitioner along with his mother were picked up from their house as they could not arrest their father Chandan who is stated to be the prime accused in the case. But, the present petitioner who is the son of said Chandan @ Sun Kumar Das is not aware about any offence committed by his father as alleged in the FIR as well as the Forwarding Report. 5. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Mondal that as per the Forwarding Report itself it is seen that only allegation against the present petitioner is that he did not provided the necessary information of his father Chandan @ Sun Kumar Das at the time of search and as they were not aware of the said incident, the son of said Chandan is arrested in the present case. Mr. Mondal further submitted that there is no allegation of theft against the present petitioner and it is the only allegation that he did not disclose the information in regards to his father and further alleged that he was also aware about the commission of offence. But, till date there is no recovery from the house of the preset petitioner though it is alleged that all the theft articles were kept concealed in their house. 6. Mr. Mondal further submitted that till today, the accused-petitioner is in custody till 31 days and considering the length of detention he may be released on bail. I/O got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him in custody. However, he will extend his cooperation in the further investigation of the case. He is a student of Law and considering this aspect also he may be released on bail. Page No.# 3/4 7. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection and submitted that considering the nature of allegation, the preset petitioner may not be allowed to go on bail without perusal of the Case Diary wherein the allegation of theft of valuable goods i.e. gold ornaments is brought in the FIR. He submitted that perusal of the Case Diary is necessary before passing any order. 8. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and also perusing the case record and specifically Forwarding Report wherein it is specifically stated about the reasons for arrest and that the accused was arrested only because he did not disclose the information about the commission of the offence as well as he did not disclose the information regarding the accused Chandan Das. Considering these aspects of the case vis-à-vis the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the interest of the investigation. In view of this, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M). The accused/petitioner, namely Ram Chandra Das @ Pranjal Das, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the Page No.# 4/4 facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant