Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010108802025 2025:GAU-AS:7342 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1129/2025 HEMEN SARMA @ HEMEN CHANDRA SARMA S/O SRI SRIKANTA DEVA SARMA R/O VILL- PALEPARA, P.O. BARANGHATI, P.S. KAYAN DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM PIN-781350 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 04.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, by order dated 22.05.2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that before that he was asked to appear before the police and accordingly, he went to the police station on 16.05.2025 and his statement was recorded. However, after the recording of the statement, he again received a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, wherein he was asked to appear before the Investigating Officer again on 22.05.2025, which made the petitioner apprehensive and therefore, he approach this Court. 4. He further submits that after grant of interim bail by this Court, thereafter, he appeared before the Investigating Officer and intimated the Investigating Officer regarding the order of the Hon’ble High Court. However, his statement was not recorded again. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 37/2025, and has submitted that on 16.05.2025, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and on that day, his statement was also recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023. 6. He further submits that on that day, he was also allowed to go after furnishing PR bond. 7. The learned counsel submits that when the Investigating Officer himself releases the petitioner on PR bond, there was no apprehension of his getting arrest in this case and therefore, he submits that his bail application is not maintainable. Page No.# 3/4 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. It appears that even after releasing the petitioner on PR bond, he was served with notice under Section 35(3) as an accused of offence under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, which is a non-bailable offence. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner of getting arrested was not without any basis. 9. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there is an endorsement of the Investigating Officer to the effect that the petitioner after getting interim bail by this Court did not personally appear due to ailment and had informed the Investigating Officer regarding the interim bail through bond of his friend. 10. Considering the materials in the Case Diary, as well as the fact that the petitioner was granted interim bail, however, after grant of interim bail, his appearance before the Investigating Officer is not reflected in the Case Diary, as well as considering the fact that prior to that on 16.05.2025, his statement under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023 has already been recorded, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary and there are materials, which might have caused the petitioner the apprehension of getting arrested in this case. 11. Hence, the interim bail granted to the petitioner, by order dated 22.05.2025 is hereby made absolute, with condition Nos. (ii),(iii) and (iv) attached to the said order remaining intact. Page No.# 4/4 12. Send back the Case Diary. 13. With the above observations, this anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant