Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010129972025 2025:GAU-AS:9671 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1374/2025 MOKBUL HUSSAIN S/O- SHA MAMUD SHEIKH. R/O- VILL.- GOBINDAPUR. P.S.- GOALPARA. DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM. PIN-783101. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, M R TALUKDAR,MS. T BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 28-07-2025 Heard Mr. A. Roshid, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Page No.# 2/3 State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Matia P.S. Case No. 78/2024 u/s 61(2)/309(5)/62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Roshid that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved with the alleged offence. However, as he was found near the ATM counter, police had suspicion on him and for which the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail. However, he is ready and willing to cooperate with the I/O in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence and with a conspiracy, the present accused/petitioner along with the other attempted to commit robbery and to that extent the present petitioner along with others brought some materials for committing robbery and it was accordingly seized by police during investigation. Mr. Sharma accordingly submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and considering the incriminating materials available in the Case Diary and gravity of the offence, I find that it is not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest Page No.# 3/3 bail to the present petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant