Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010152902026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2053/2026 SRI ANUP BHUYAN S/O - LT. PRAKASH BHUYAN, R/O - SARTHEBARI DABOR SUPA, WARD NO. 6, P.S. - SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT - BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : A SAHARIA, R MALI,MR. A TARAFDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. A. Saharia, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 69/2026, registered under Sections 331(4)/305 of BNS, Page No.# 2/3 2023. 3. The FIR filed in the instant case was dated 17.07.2026 and revealed that on the intervening night of 15.07.2026 and 16.07.2026, some miscreants had entered the house of the informant and had stolen bell metal disc and inverter machine which were valued at Rs. 50,000/-. It is stated that during the investigation the name of the petitioner surfaced and it is stated in the arrest memo by the Investigating Officer that the stealing part was done by 6 (six) accused persons and that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is stated to have purchased that said bell metal utensils form a co-accused. It was further stated that on being led by the petitioner, two bell metal Pods and one bell metal tray were recovered from his residence. It is also stated that the said articles were part of the stolen property and that further that the petitioner knew and had reasons to believe that the said articles were stolen properties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way involved in the said offence of stealing as he had simply purchased the articles from one, Dipen Bhuyan. He has further placed the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 19.07.2026, wherein, it was stated that the Investigating Officer did not pray for police custody in respect of the petitioner and others. 5. On the other hand, Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, submits that the Case Diary would reveal the entire facts as to whether the accused persons were involved in the chain of stealing and selling it to others and who are the others. Page No.# 3/3 6. On consideration of the submissions made by the parties, more so in view of the fact, that the said articles were purchased by the petitioner and also due to the fact that the police does not require any further custodial interrogation, this Court finds its fit that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta under the following conditions : (i) He will appear before the IO as and when call for. (ii) He will not hamper or tamper with the evidence. (ii) He will not influence the witnesses. (iv) He will not leave the place of residence without the permission of the Investigating Officer. 7. The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant