Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010107882026 2026:GAU-AS:7984 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1421/2026 ASIF AHMED AND 2 ORS. SON OF TABIB ALI, MANDAKATA SIMELIBARI, P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: FARMUD ALI SON OF HASIM ALI CHUBURI P.S. SIPAJHAR DISTRICT DARRANG ASSAM 3: RIKU ALI SON OF FULMAMOD ALI MANDAKATA SIMELIBARI P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. A MAHANTA,R K SHARMA,MR. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 08-06-20 26 Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. PP, 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) Asif Ahmed; (ii) Farmud Ali and (ii) Riku Ali in connection with Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 185/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/303(2)/317(2)/248/217/240 of BNS, read with Section 13 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the present petitioners are innocent and they are not at all connected with the alleged offence. They are working as driver and labour under Bijul Ali, the co-accused, who was the owner of the excavator. Said Bijul Ali has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and considering the case of the present petitioners under the same footing, they may also be released on bail on the ground of parity. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the present petitioners visited the police only as per the instigation of their owner Bijul Ali, co- accused and that apart they are not at all connected with the offence. 6. Mr. Choudhury, submitted that the case is registered under Sections 61(2)/317(2)/303(2)/248/240/217 BNS read with Section 13 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, but no case has been registered under robbery or the Assam Page No.# 3/6 Cattle Preservation Act and till date there is no recovery of money which was alleged to have been collected by the present petitioners along with co-accused by involving themselves in cattle smuggling. He further submitted that at best the case may attract Section 217 of the BNS, which is a bailable offence and considering the ground of parity, they may be released on bail. 7. The accused petitioners got arrested in connection with this case on 22.05.2026 and thus, the I.O. got sufficient opportunity to interrogate them, keeping them in custody. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to extend their cooperation in the further investigation of this case, if they are granted with the privilege of bail. 8. Mr. Sharma, learned APP raised objection and submitted that in the bail order, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that said Bijul Ali had given false information as per instruction of his uncle, who are also co-accused of this case, but they are still absconding and could not be arrested till date. 9. On the other hand, the accused persons also shifted the blame to arrested accused Bijul Ali stating that as per his instructions only, they visited the police station to give false information regarding decoity. 10. He further submitted that till date there is no recovery of money which was misappropriated by the present accused petitioners only to cheat the other partners to whom it was to be delivered. Further it is submitted that there is an allegation of cattle smuggling against the present petitioners and the case is still under investigation and hence, further custodial interrogation of the petitioners will be required to unearth some more facts of the case and also to nab the other co- accused persons of the case. 11. Mr. Sarma further submitted that the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have held that only on the ground of parity the bail cannot be granted and Page No.# 4/6 involvement of the individual accused person is to be considered. Mr. Sarma accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to allow the petitioners to go on bail at this stage. 12. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submitted in this regard that the money is claimed by Bijul Ali wherein he claimed loss of Rs.21,85,000/- but till date there is no recovery of any money and no case is also registered with the allegation of cattle smuggling which has been alleged in the FIR. 13. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case diary. 14. It was the case that a false information of decoity was received in the police station, wherein they tried to make a story that some police official of crime branch had snatched or robbed Rs.25,00,000/- from the accused petitioners and on the basis of which the FIR was lodged before the police station. But in enquiry only it has come to the knowledge that there was no such robbery and only to cheat some of the persons and to misappropriate the money, the story of robbery was made and the FIR was lodged before the police station. 15. But it is a fact that till date there is no recovery of money and that apart it is seen that though there is allegation of cattle smuggling against the present petitioners and other absconding persons, but no case has also been registered under the cattle Smuggling Act. Further from the note of the I.O. it is also seen that the two absconding persons are the main person who hatched the criminal conspiracy and planned the entire false robbery story and as per the instructions of the other accused persons a false story of robbery was reported before the police station. But till date there is no such investigation as to why the accused persons hatched the criminal conspiracy and whether there was any cheating or criminal conspiracy was there for misappropriation of Rs.21,85,000/- as alleged. Page No.# 5/6 16. Further considering the fact that the co-accused Bijul Ali, who is the owner of the excavator, who also claimed the money has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and considering the case of the present petitioners on the same footing, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitioner also may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 17. Further the I.O. also got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the present petitioners, keeping them in custody and as such this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required for the purpose of investigation and accordingly, I find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 18. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Asif Ahmed; (ii) Farmud Ali and (ii) Riku Ali, be released on bail in connection with Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 185/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/303(2)/317(2)/248/217/240 of BNS, read with Section 13 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case and (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 19. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 20. Return the case diary herewith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant