Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010079342025 2025:GAU-AS:5706 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/900/2025 RUP KHAN AND ANR. S/O SULTAN KHAN R/O VILL-GOMA, P.S. TARABARI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM 2: GAFUR ALI S/O GIASUDDIN ALI R/O VILL-SONAPUR PATHAR P.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 08.05.2025 Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, who are apprehending arrest in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 52/2025, under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they are no way involved in the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case as they reside in the same campus with the arrested accused persons. They are driver by profession and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. However, they are ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of the case if they are granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that the present accused/petitioners are fully involved in the alleged offence and they Page No.# 3/3 are the persons who were behind the stealing of the Dumper Truck from the garaze and then they sold it somewhere at Meghalaya which is yet to be recovered and hence, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners are very much necessary for the interest of investigation. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, materials available in the Case Diary and the nature of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners and hence the same stands rejected. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in terms above. The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant