Allowed

Sri Monuj Das v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2026AB/1756/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench order converting an interim pre-arrest bail order into an absolute bail due to the applicant's cooperation with the investigation regarding a tractor theft case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

What did the court decide?

The interim pre-arrest bail order dated 03.08.2026 was made absolute. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of, and the case diary was sent back.

Sri Monuj Das Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010159502026

2026:GAU-AS:13527

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : AB/1756/2026

¶6

SRI MONUJ DAS

¶7

S/O LT PHANIDHAR DAS, R/O VILL SOUTH HAIBARGAON, PS NAGAON SADAR, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, SAMIM RAHMAN,MD A RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER

¶15

14.09.2026

¶16

Heard Mr S Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr R J Baruah, learned

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶18

By this application the petitioner has sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with

¶19

Mayang PS Case No. 60/2026, registered under Sections 303(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

¶20

Page No.# 2/3

¶21

The First Information Report in connection with which the petitioner is

¶22

apprehending arrest, was lodged on 18.07.2026, by the informant, namely, Sahabul Hoque, stating inter alia, that on the night of 03.03.2026, his tractor was stolen by some unknown persons and that he and his relatives had made extensive searches for the said tractor, but could not get it and that he has also informed the Police. It is, thereafter, stated that on the day of lodging of the FIR, in the morning he came to know that the petitioner along with others were taking the stolen tractor to Jorabat for the purpose of selling it. It is, thereafter, stated that, on his information, the Police had intercepted the tractor, apprehended the driver and also two persons from a vehicle, i.e., Swift vehicle, which was following the tractor.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant had not given any report to the Police on missing of his tractor on 03.03.2026, apart from the bald statement written in the present FIR. He further submits that the story narrated in the FIR is a concocted story and the real story is that one Jamal had taken loan from the petitioner by giving the tractor to the petitioner as a collateral mortgage. He further submits that on the day when the tractor was seized, the said petitioner was on his way to return back the tractor and get the money from said Jamal and on the transit, the tractor was seized.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, submits that the petitioner was in the vehicle and on seeing the Police,

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

he fled therefrom, which according to him was not warranted if the story narrated by the

¶27

counsel of the petitioner is considered to be correct. He further submits that there was no reason for the petitioner to take the tractor to Jorabat for the purpose of selling it. As such, he submits that the investigation is on to unearth the real story behind the theft, if at all that had happened.

¶28

Be that as it may, it is also noticed that the petitioner was enlarged on interim prearrest bail vide order dated 03.08.2026, on the ground that he shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 (ten) days, for recording his statement and Mr Baruah, on perusal of the Case Diary, submits that the petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement has been recorded. As such, it is seen that necessary cooperation has been meted out by the petitioner and in view of the same, this Court deems it fit to make the order dated 03.08.2026, absolute, on the condition that the petitioner should comply with the directions as well as the conditions given in the said interim order.

¶29

Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶30

Send back the Case Diary.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Sri Monuj Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Monuj Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases