Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010094982024 2025:GAU-AS:684 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1225/2024 MANOWAR HUSSAIN @ MANOWAR TALUKDAR S/O BADSHA TALUKDAR R/O GANDHARIPARA,P.O. MECHPARA, P.S. BAJALI, DIST. BAJALI, ASSAM PIN-781313 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, MR. H AHMED,MS. A K CHOPHI,A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22.01.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ghosal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Patacharkuchi P.S. Case No. 90/2024, under Sections 342/392/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail from this Court on 16.07.2024, the petitioner did not make any communication with the engaged counsels and hence, he is not in a position to say as to whether the accused/petitioner appeared before the I.O. or not complying the order dated 16.07.2024. Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the last entry of the Case Diary is on 28.10.2024 and the Case Diary also reveals that on 20.10.2024, the I.O. also visited the house of the accused/petitioner, but he was found absent. He further submitted that the statement of the petitioner is also not found available in the Case Diary, which otherwise reveals that the petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court and did not co-operate in the investigation of this case. More so, he submitted that though the trucks involved in this case are already been recovered, but till date, the stolen articles are not yet recovered. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, conduct of the present accused/petitioner and the material available in the Case Page No.# 3/3 Diary, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused/petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused/petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2024 is hereby stands vacated. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. The Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant