Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010113482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1176/2025 AMINUR RASHID CHOUDHURY S/O ABDUL MUQTADIR CHOUDHURY WARD NO. 15, BONOMALI, P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI, KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR C GOGOI, MR. NOOR KUTUB ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 04.08.2025 Heard Mr. A. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Aminur Rashid Choudhury, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Karimganj Police Station Case No. 248/2025 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/314/316(5) and 351(2) of Page No.# 2/3 the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 20.05.2025, one Parashjyoti Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Sribhumi Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner, who is a General Secretary of Indian National Congress Party, took Rs. 4,00,000/- as an advance on the assurance that he would give party tickets for Zila Parishad Election to one Amina Begum, who is the wife of the informant, however, neither the same was done, nor the money, which the petitioner has taken was returned back. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are not true. He submits that before filing of this FIR, the petitioner had lodged one criminal defamation case against the informant, in which, summons have been issued against the informant, therefore, this instant FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the case, which was filed by the present petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner has also filed a civil suit regarding the defamation against the informant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that apart from Section 316 (5) of BNS, 2023, all other sections mentioned in the instant case entails punishment not more than seven years. Hence, the guidelines of the ruling of “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar” reported in (2014) 8 SCC 275 are applicable to this case. 6. He further submits that the offence under Section 316 (5) of BNS, 2023, the same is not applicable to this case as the petitioner is neither a public servant nor a banker or merchant or factor or broker, or agent, which is essential ingredient for commission of offence under Section 316 (5) of BNS, 2023. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even assuming the allegation levelled in the FIR to be true, still the dispute between the parties would be only of civil nature. He further submits that as the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation, hence, he may be allowed to go on anticipatory bail. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is material against the petitioner. It appears that pursuant to the order dated 28.05.2025 granting interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the petitioner had appeared before the I/O and his statement has already been recorded. 9. Considering the aforesaid fact and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that in the given facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Page No.# 3/3 10. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 28.05.2025 is hereby made absolute with the same terms and conditions. 11. Anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant