GAHC010015862026 2026:GAU-AS:2013 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./300/2026 SAMIM HUSSAIN AND 3 ORS.

S/O- LT. JIYAUR RAHMAN,R/O- VILL BAMUNBARI,P.S. HAJO,DIST-

KAMRUPR, ASSAM

2: SIRAJ ALI S/O LT. HACHAN ALI R/O VILL- HIRAJANI P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP (R)

ASSAM

3: ATIFUL RAHMAN @ BULU S/O ATAUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- HIRAJANI P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP (R)

ASSAM

4: DEWAN JUAL S/O LT. DEWAN ABDUL RAHMAN R/O RAJABAZAR P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP (R)

ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, F RAHMAN,MS N SULTANA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

ORDER

12-02-2026 Heard Ms. S. K. Nargis, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Samim Hussain; (2) Siraj Ali; (3) Atiful Rahman @ Bulu and (4) Dewan Jual, who were arrested in connection with Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 03/2026 under Sections 331/305 BNS, 2023.

3. Case diary received. Perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Ms. Nargis, learned counsel that the present petitioners are not involved in the alleged offence, as at the time of lodging of the present FIR on 08.01.2026 all the present petitioners are in police custody in connection with Pathsala P.S. Case No.03/2026. The petitioner No. 1, 2 and 4 were in custody since 07.01.2026 in connection with said Pathsala P.S. Case and when the FIR was lodged and at the same time, the petitioner No.3 was also arrested in connection with said Pathsala P.S. Case on 13.01.2026.

5. She further submitted that at the time of forwarding the petitioner No.3 in said Pathsala P.S. Case, there was no mention about the present case, though the FIR was lodged on 08.01.2026. Thus, the investigating authority did not inform the Court as well as the petitioners about the pendency of the other FIR against the present petitioners. She further submitted that all the accused petitioners are in custody since last 23 days and they were shown arrested on 19.01.2026. Thus, the I.O. got sufficient opportunity to interrogate them, keeping them in custody. She also submitted that the FIR in the present case was lodged with a delay of 12 days and the FIR was lodged on 08.01.2026 though as per the statement made in the FIR that the incident took place on 26.12.2025. That apart, as per the statement of the FIR, the informant also saw the car, while taking away his cows from his cowshed. All the petitioners were granted bail in connection with earlier case, i.e., Pathsala P.S. Case No.03/2026 and all the petitioners will abide by all the terms and conditions, if they are granted with the privilege of bail in this case.

6. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners and from the statement available in the case diary, it is seen that they are habitual offender and they have committed the offence which they have already admitted at the time of recording their statement. More so, considering the conduct of the petitioners who are habitual offender, the I.O. also made a prayer for addition of Section 317(4) of BNS in the present case wherein the statutory period is 90 days.

7. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP further submitted that they used to steal cows in luxurious cars and after stealing those cows, they used to sell the cows to other person. Mr. Sarma accordingly submitted that this is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners.

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary wherefrom it is seen that there are sufficient progress in the investigation of the case and at the same time, it is also seen that a