Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010070572025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/800/2025 MD RAMJAN ALI S/O- LATE HAIFIZUDDIN, VILL- BHAKATGAON, PO BHAKATGAON, PS RAHA, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S J SARMAH, MR. M P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 05-04-2025 Heard Mr. M.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam. 2. By this application under Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner viz. Md. Ramjan Ali has approached this Court Page No.# 2/4 seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Gorchuk Police Station Case no. 80/2024 registered under Sections 461/380, Indian Penal Code, for the third occasion after rejection of his previous two pre- arrest bail applications, A.B. no. 1876/2024 and A.B. no. 2396/2024 by Orders, dated 05.08.2024 & dated 10.09.2024, respectively, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as upon perusal of the materials in the case diary collected during the course of investigation and which were available in the case diary on those dates. 3. The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged on behalf of M/s Ronak Enterprise. As per the FIR lodged on 13.03.2024, M/s Ronak Enterprise has a godown which is located at Pub Boragaon, Gorchuk, Guwahati. As an incident of theft took place on 13.03.2024 in the said godown, on being checked, [i] E- rickshaw Batteries; [ii] E-rickshaw Chargers; and [iii] Erickshaw Parts; were found stolen from the godown. At around 07-00 a.m. on 13.03.2024, staff of Ms. Ronak Enterprise discovered that the godown had been forcibly entered into by breaking its lock. The CCTV installed at the godown premises was found in broken condition and the DVR box was found stolen. 4. It has emerged from the Search & Seizure List, M.R. no. 67/2024 that on search of the house of the petitioner on 20.03.2024, a number of articles namely, [i] East Man Mitra Leed Acid 3 W Charge – 1 no.; [ii] East Man Battery EM16024ER – 1 no.; [iii] East Man Battery EM150ER – 1 no.; [iv] East Man Battery EM135012 ER – 10 nos.; [v] East Man Battery EM120 ER – 28 nos.; and [vi] East Man Battery EM1006ER – 2 nos.; were recovered in presence of witnesses and those seized articles were identified by the representative of M/s Page No.# 3/4 Ronak Enterprise as some of the articles, found stolen from the godown at Pub Boragaon, Gorchuk, Guwahati on 13.03.2024. 5. The detail reasons why the previous two pre-arrest bail applications filed by the petitioner were rejected are recorded in the Orders, dated 05.08.2024 & dated 10.09.2024 respectively and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. 6. In the instant pre-arrest bail application preferred for the third occasion, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner’s wife has recently given birth to a baby on 22.02.2025. But due to apprehension of arrest in connection with Gorchuk Police Station Case no. 80/2024, the petitioner could not attend his new born baby and has not been able to perform the duties of a father. 7. The law is well settled that after rejection of an application for pre-arrest bail, there is scope to file a subsequent bail application for pre-arrest bail only if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. 8. In the case in hand, the FIR was lodged on 13.03.2024 in respect of an incident occurred on the same date. The previous two pre-arrest bail applications were rejected on 05.08.2024 & 10.09.2024 and those pre-arrest bail applications were rejected after consideration of the materials on merit. This Court is not persuaded to observe that the birth of baby on 22.02.2025 has given rise to a new cause for extending the privilege of pre-arrest bail despite presence of the incriminating materials against the petitioner found during the Page No.# 4/4 course of investigation. 9. In the above view of the matter, the instant application is found bereft of any merit and it does not require reconsideration in view of involvement of the petitioner in connection with the crime and rejection of the previous two applications. 10. Accordingly, the instant pre-arrest bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant