Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010132082025 2025:GAU-AS:9430 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1386/2025 RINKU DAS S/O ANIL DAS R/O GOLAI NO. 1, P.O. AND P.S. DIGBOI, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786171 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, MD S A MONDAL,Ms. R. R. BORAH,MR S RAHMAN,MR. A DEB Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 23-07-2025 Heard Mr. A A R Karim, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Digboi P. S. Case No. 81/2025 registered under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/303(2) of BNS, 2023 corresponding to GR No. 180/2025 at Digboi, Dist. Tinsukia, Assam. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit in regards to the petitioner’s father suffering from cancer. 4. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Karim that he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. He took some of the vehicles on a rental basis and in pursuance to that agreement the owner of the vehicles also executed the affidavit and the agreement. But, even after paying of the EMI, those vehicles were not in the name of the present petitioner. However, he is ready and willing to cooperate with the I/O in further investigation of this case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner. He took the rent of 4 nos. of vehicles at present and did not pay the EMI and without paying the EMI he sold out the vehicles to the other persons. With the help of the purchaser only 3 nos. of vehicles already recovered by the I/O during the time of investigation. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma submitted that his custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth some more facts of the case and accordingly he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present Page No.# 3/3 petitioner. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and considering the materials available in the Case Diary and nature of the allegation, I find that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be required for the interest of investigation. Accordingly, I find it not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant