Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010121722025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1292/2025 MOJIBUR REHMAN S/OMD. MAINUDDIN R/O SPMARI , BORGHULI PIN NO. 782120 DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 31.07.2025 Heard Ms. G Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mojibur Rehman @ Majubur Rehman, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 176/2025 under Sections 329(3)/115(2)/308(2)/127(7)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS. Page No.# 2/2 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 4th of May, 2025, one Amit Kumar Roy, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Tinsukia Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 3rd of May, 2025, the petitioner along with twenty other unknown persons entered into the house of the informant and forcibly put him into the vehicle and took him to Hotel Highway where they demanded Rs. 1 Lakh from the informant and when the informant refused to pay the amount he was assaulted causing injury on his abdomen. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accusations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR are not true. She submits that both the petitioner as well as the informant are the businessman dealing in the business of vegetable and there was some dispute between them regarding payment of money and due to said dispute some altercation arose between them, however, no money was paid neither any injury has been caused to the informant. She further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation. 5. Pursuant to the order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 09.06.2025, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case and his statement has been recorded. 6. On perusal of the materials on record, the dispute appears primarily to be of a civil nature and in any case, the allegations are not as such as would require custodial interrogation of the petitioner, particularly, after his statement has already been recorded by the I.O. of the case. 7. Considering the above, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed and the order of interim pre- arrest bail dated 09.06.2025 is hereby made absolute. 8. This pre-arrest bail application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant