GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 4 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 8:

1. Heard Mr. Z.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ashan Ali Sk has prayed for regular bail in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No.203/2025 registered under Sections 305(b) / 336(3) / 339 / 340(2) / 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

3. The accused petitioner stated to have been arrested in this case on 04.09.2025 and forwarded on 05.09.2025.

4. The case arose out of an FIR dated 07.08.2025. The gist of the FIR is that the DTO, Bongaigaon had lodged an FIR before the Bongaigaon Police Station with regard to a complaint received from one Apurba Kumar Barman about someone illegally selling his motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-19-G-3149 without his consent as he had not sold the same to anyone. It is further alleged that upon examination of the case, the names of persons - Rafikul Islam, Siddique Ali and Tamizur Rahman emerged and that upon examination of the relevant documents and the vehicle, there was a mismatch of the chassis number of the vehicle and that mentioned in the documents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in the offence and he has already spent 35 days in pre-trial detention and that the offences are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years.

6. The case diary has been received by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, objecting to the grant of bail and submits that the investigation has not only revealed the involvement of the present accused but also revealed that he is rather one of the mastermind of the alleged activities which are by way of racket with regard to these allegedly stolen / manipulated vehicles.

7. It is contended that the documents are manipulated to sell vehicles to other persons and the alleged illegal activities involve forgery, impersonation by photographs etc. It is contended that some personnel of the office of DTO are also involved and one of them has been arrested and is also a co-accused.

8. I have perused the detailed bail objection submitted by the I.O. The I.O. has strongly opposed the bail and has narrated in detail the progress and sequence of investigation so far and some of the findings therein.

9. It is submitted by the learned prosecution that there is forgery of signature of one MVI who was not even posted at that location. The bail objection mentions about forgery of a notary agreement as well.

10. I find force in the contention of the prosecution and the I.O. that at this stage of investigation the grant of bail might prejudice to the course of investigation.

11. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed and disposed of.

12. Send back the case diary.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.