Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2780/2026 of RAVI KANT SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 27 September 2026
GAHC010200192026 2026:GAU-AS:14461 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2780/2026 RAVI KANT SHARMA S/O - PARDEEP SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BAGAUCHHA, NEAR BAGAUCHHA SCHOOL, P.S. - MAHARAJGANJ, DIST - SIWAN, PIN - 841244,
GAHC010200192026
2026:GAU-AS:14461
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2780/2026
RAVI KANT SHARMA
S/O - PARDEEP SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BAGAUCHHA, NEAR
BAGAUCHHA SCHOOL, P.S. - MAHARAJGANJ, DIST - SIWAN, PIN - 841244, BIHAR.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K PUJARI, MS. K AKHTAR PUJARI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
28.09.2026
Heard Ms. K. Akhtar Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondents.
2. Invoking section 483 BNSS, the petitioner herein is seeking regular bail in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 142/2026 under section under Sections 331(4)/305(a) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The gist of the allegations is that on 07.08.2026, in the evening, when the informant went for an evening walk and returned, found his house being robbed of the valuables including ornaments and cash of Rs.60,000/-.
4. The petitioner is stated to be a carpenter, who was working in the factory owned by the informant's son and living in one component of his house in upstairs. It is alleged in the FIR that upon coming back, he did not find the petitioner present there in the house.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from being in custody for 51 days, the petitioner is innocent and not involved in the alleged offence and it is also submitted that there is contradiction between the FIR and the statement pointed out by the prosecution.
6. The case diary has been received.
7. Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional PP, submits that on the basis of the case diary that neighbouring witnesses have revealed in their statements that they saw the petitioner and three persons entering the house, remaining there for a considerable time and then going out.
8. Upon perusal of the statements, I find that the said witnesses have stated that around 7:00 PM, they saw the four persons coming out of the house together and moving away quickly. The sniffer dog exercise also is stated to have stated to have revealed something incriminating as the sniffer dog repeatedly went to the house of the present petitioner located in the upper story.
9. It is submitted by prosecution that the valuables have not yet been recovered and the other persons who had supposedly entered the house along with the petitioner have also not been apprehended or examined.
10. I have perused the detailed bail objection submitted by the I.O. At this stage, I find force in the prosecution contentions opposing the bail. Therefore, the bail petition stands rejected at this stage.
11. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant