Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010088982026 2026:GAU-AS:6977 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/968/2026 FAKHRUDDIN AHMED AND 2 ORS. SON OF LATE HAFIJUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHARGAON, P.O. PACHIM JHARGAON, P.S. TAMULPUR, PIN 781367, DISTRICT TAMULPUR, ASSAM. 2: RITTIK HAZARIKA SON OF FAKHRUDDIN AHMED RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHARGAON P.O. PACHIM JHARGAON P.S. TAMULPUR PIN 781367 DISTRICT TAMULPUR ASSAM 3: SYED RICH AHMED ALIAS FARUK AHMED SON OF FAKHRUDDIN AHMED RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHARGAON P.O. PACHIM JHARGAON P.S. TAMULPUR PIN 781367 DISTRICT TAMULPUR ASSAM. BEING A MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER FAKHRUDDIN AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R SODIAL, MS S Z HAYAT,MUFIDUL ISLAM,MR. M H SAIKIA,R ALI Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 20-05-2026 Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Fakhruddin Ahmed; (ii) Rittik Hazarika and (iii) Syed Rich Ahmed @ Faruk Ahmed in connection with Satgaon P.S. Case No. 50/2026 (corresponding to G.R. No. 1459/2026) registered under Sections 305(a)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. Mr. Islam, learned counsel submitted that the present petitioners are innocent and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.3 is still a juvenile. He further submitted that accused petitioner No.1 was working as a delivery boy in a Gas Agency. But the owner of the said Gas Agency did not pay him the salary and when he asked for his salary, he was told that, his salary will be paid within a short period. But, till the time of lodging of the FIR, the salary was not paid and for the illness of his wife, he had to leave along with other petitioners and only with that grudge, the present FIR has been lodged with some false and concocted allegation, though they have not committed any theft in the said Gas Agency. 5. However, all the petitioners are ready and willing to extend their Page No.# 3/4 cooperation in the further investigation of this case, if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 6. To substantiate the plea that the petitioner No.3 is a juvenile, one birth certificate is also annexed with the petitioner. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted in this regard that these accused petitioners are involved in the alleged offence and all of them were staying in the godown of the said Gas Agency as caretakers. Every day they used to sell 2/3 cylinders and while committing the theft of the cylinder, they used switch off the CCTV. When the accountant made an audit, then only it was came to knowledge that there is a shortage of 19 cylinders and 47 numbers of empty cylinders are missing from the godown. When the matter was enquired about, all the three petitioners fled away from the godown by taking Rs.55,000/-. 8. It is further submitted that there are several eye witnesses, who also corroborated with the case of the prosecution and accordingly Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the petitioners the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 9. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case diary. 10. The petitioners have taken the plea that the petitioner No.3 is a juvenile and to substantiate the same, one birth certificate is also annexed with the petition. But surprisingly, the name which is shown in the birth certificate is not in the name of the present petitioner No.3, but it is in the name of one Rich Ahmed, though the name of father is stated to be Phakaruddin Ahmed. Thus, there is no such document to hold that the petitioner No.3 is a juvenile at the time of lodging of the FIR. Page No.# 4/4 11. Further considering the materials available in the case diary and the modus-operandi of the case, whereby, the petitioners used to sell 2/3 numbers of cylinders in a day and thus, committed theft in the godown since long period where, they were entrusted the duty of caretaker in the said godown by the Gas Agency. 12. Considering all these aspects of the case and the materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioners, (i) Fakhruddin Ahmed; (ii) Rittik Hazarika and (iii) Syed Rich Ahmed @ Faruk Ahmed in connection with Satgaon P.S. Case No. 50/2026 (corresponding to G.R. No. 1459/2026) registered under Sections 305(a)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 stands rejected. 14. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant