Taffazul Ali And Anr vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court rejected the prayer for bail. The reasoning was based on the incriminating material available in the case diary and the gravity of the offense. The Court noted that the petitioners were alleged to be purchasers of the stolen items, which were recovered from them, and the value of these items was substantial (Rs. 5,18,713.64). The ratio decidendi is that bail may be denied when there is significant incriminating evidence and the offense is serious, even if the accused has undergone a period of custody and some items have been recovered. The Court directed that the case diary be sent back.

Facts

The petitioners, Taffazul Ali and Toibar Ali, were arrested on October 9, 2025, in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 252/2025, registered under Sections 331(4)/305(a)/112(2) of the BNS, 2023. The FIR was lodged by Bhaskar Jyoti Singha, alleging that unknown miscreants broke into his shop, M/s M.S. Infotech, on September 28, 2025, and stole mobile phones, televisions, laptops, accessories, and cash. The total approximate value of the stolen goods, including GST, was Rs. 5,18,713.64. The petitioners' counsel submitted that they had been in custody for 38 days and that the stolen items had been recovered. The State's counsel contended that the petitioners were purchasers of the stolen items, which were recovered from them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS, considering their period of custody and recovery of stolen items? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners have spent 38 days in custody, and the stolen items have been recovered, thus their prayer for bail should be considered. Revenue/State's Argument: The petitioners are the purchasers of the stolen items, which were recovered from them, and the value of these items amounts to Rs. 5,18,713.64. The gravity of the offense and incriminating material in the case diary warrant rejection of the bail application.