Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010093282025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1013/2025 BHASKAR PATOWARY SON OF PABITRA PATOWARY, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BELSOR, PATOWARY CUHUPA, P.O. AND P.S. BELSOR, DISTRICT NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN NO. 781304. PRESENTLY RESIDED AT B 12, MATHURA NAGAR, NEAR DOWN TOWN HOSPITAL, ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM,GUWAHATI- 781006 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K DAS, MR A I TALUKDAR,MR D BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner namely, Bhaskar Patowary, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 235/2025, under Sections 111(2) (a)/308(5)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 13.03.2025, one Anjali Borah, S.I of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Dispur police station, inter alia, alleging that some goons were collecting illegal money from the vegetable vendors at Beltola Bazar and accordingly police officials in civil dress were asked to go to the said place along with the informant and during the said operation 5(five) nos. of accused persons were apprehended red handed while they were collecting illegal money from the vendors. Some articles were also seized from their possession. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the said offence alleged in the FIR. He submits that his wife is the lessee of Dispur Super Market as well as the goat market and one Phatik Das is the lessee of Beltola Market. He submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, however, during interrogation the apprehended accused persons have implicated the name of the petitioner as involved in the alleged offence. It was alleged that on the instruction of the petitioner, the arrested accused persons were collecting money. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meanwhile, all the apprehended accused persons are released on bail. He also submitted that the co-accused Phatik Das has also been allowed to go on interim bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 04.04.2025 in Anticipatory Bail No.796/2025. 6. He further submits that the petitioner had also approach the Court of learned Additional Session Judge no.5, Kamrup(metro) by filing an anticipatory bail application, which was registered as A.B 74/2025, where he was initially granted interim bail with a direction to appear before the Investigating Officer. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuant to the Page No.# 3/4 direction of the said Court, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer on 23.03.2025 and has a proof of the same. He has also submitted the acknowledgment to that effect, before the said Court. However, by order dated 29.04.2025, the said Court had dismissed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since all the co- accused had already been granted bail and the petitioner is also ready to co-operate in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the Investigating Officer and comply with any direction which may be imposed by this Court. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. Baishya, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and has produced the Case Diary of Dispur P.S. Case No. 235/2025, and has submitted that the offence of collecting illegal money from innocent public is being committed in an organized manner of which the petitioner is a part. He also submits that the petitioner being an influential person, if his bail is granted at this stage, he may influence the witnesses. 10. I have considered the submissions, made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record. Though it appears that some of the co-accused have indicated the name of the present petitioner regarding his complicity in the offence alleged in this case, however, the fact remains that in the meanwhile, the other co-accused who were apprehended red handed have already been granted bail. It also appears that the co-accused Phatik Das, has also been allowed to go on interim bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court. Further, it also appears that in pursuant to the directions of the Court of learned Additional Session Judge No.5, the petitioner had gone to the police station and as a proof thereof, he has produced the acknowledgment receipt before the said Court. 11. Though the learned Additional Session Judge No.5 has rejected the Page No.# 4/4 anticipatory bail application on the ground that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner, Bhaskar Patowary, in the Case Diary so is the case in respect of the other co-accused also who has already been granted bail. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation his custodial detention may not be necessary. 12. Hence, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within 7(seven) days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If he does so, within a stipulated time, in the event of his arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 235/2025, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions : i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 13. Send back the Case Diary. 14. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant