Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2642/2026 of MANOSHI DAS AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 September 2026
GAHC010191642026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2642/2026 MANOSHI DAS AND ANR W/O DEBAJIT DEURI, R/O VILL UTTAR DOLIJOLIA, PS DERGAON, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 2: SINTU RAY S/O DHARMESWAR RAY R/O VILL ABHAYAPURI
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010191642026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2642/2026
MANOSHI DAS AND ANR
W/O DEBAJIT DEURI, R/O VILL UTTAR DOLIJOLIA, PS DERGAON, DIST
GOLAGHAT, ASSAM
2: SINTU RAY
S/O DHARMESWAR RAY
R/O VILL ABHAYAPURI
PS JOGIGHOPA
DIST BONGAIGAON
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR P SONOWAL
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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.
ORDER
Date : 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Page No.# 2/2 whereby the petitioners, 1. Manoshi Das & 2. Sintu Ray, have prayed for granting his bail after they were arrested on 25.08.2026 in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.178/2026 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not affair named accused persons and although it is stated in the forwarding report that they were apprehended by the informant with the assistance of local persons while they were allegedly approaching the informant for collection of further money in connection with the instant transaction, that aspect of the matter has not been mentioned in the FIR which was lodged on 26/08/2026, i.e., after the apprehension of the petitioners.
4. It is submitted that the petitioners are no way involved in the alleged offence and having regard to the period of detention, the prayer for bail may be considered.
5. Per-contra learned Additional PP submits that the main FIR named accused Sunil Das is absconding and CDR analysis reveals the connection between the said Sunil Das and the petitioners. Although the date of registration is mentioned as 26/08/2026, in the format of the FIR, it was actually lodged on 23/08/2026 before apprehension of the petitioner which date is available on the body of the FIR and therefore, the fact of apprehension of the petitioners was not mentioned by the informant, which took place on 26/08/2026.
6. A perusal of the CD clearly reveals that the petitioners were apprehended by the informant and local people on 26/08/2026 in front of Rajdhani Majid, Hatigaon and prior information about the approach of the petitioners was given to the police and there appears to be sufficient incriminating material against the petitioners and the offence also is of a serious nature wherein, an innocent person was allegedly duped of Rs. 4 lakhs.
7. Having regard to the above, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. Send back the CD
JUDGE Comparing Assistant