Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010138672025 2025:GAU-AS:12890 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1438/2025 PRANJAL SONOWAL S/O SRI TIKHESWAR SONOWAL R/O HAHKHAITI TEA GARDEN, GRANT NO. 1, P.O.AND P.S. KAKOPATHAR DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM PIN-786152. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HASAN, MR. A HASAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 17-09-2025 Heard Mr. A. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Pranjal Sonowal who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 11/2024 under Sections 409/420 IPC (corresponding to G.R No. 17/2024). 3. It is submitted by Mr. Hasan, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. 4. However, at present the petitioner who was working as an ASI at Tinsukia District Executive Force is placed under suspension and hence, there is no access to his department to hamper or tamper with any investigation and the case basically based on documentary evidence. 5. Mr. Hasan, learned counsel further submitted that this is 3rd bail application seeking pre-arrest bail after rejection of two earlier bail applications of the present petitioner. 6. He further submitted that after the order of rejection, the petitioner approached the learned Trial Court requesting to provide the status report of the case and accordingly, the I.O. had submitted the present status report on 20.05.2025 stating that the interrogation of the present petitioner is yet to be done and inspite of issuance of notice to him to appear before the I.O., he did Page No.# 3/5 not appear till date for which, he could not be interrogated in connection with this case. 7. Mr. Hasan, learned counsel further submitted that in earlier two occasions also the status report was called for wherefrom also it is seen that there is sufficient progress in the investigation of the case, but the case is pending for recording statement/interrogation of the present petitioner. 8. Mr. Hasan, learned counsel further submitted that the present petitioner is ready and willing to extend his cooperation with the I.O. in further investigation of the case, but he could not appear before the I.O. as there is apprehension of his arrest. However, if the petitioner is provided with some interim protection, he will appear before the I.O. and will extend his cooperation in further investigation of the case, being a permanent resident of the address locality, there is no chance of absconding, if he is provided with some interim protection. 9. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that the allegation brought against the present petitioner is very serious in nature wherein he was alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.56,59,000/- which were realized under the M.V. Act at different intervals but without depositing those amounts, the present petitioner being a police officer had misappropriated the entire amount. 10. Further, he submitted that the petitioner was also provided with several notices to appear before the I.O. but insptie of receiving those notices, the petitioner never appear before the I.O. to extend his cooperation in the investigation of the case and he is absconding and inspite of several attempts being made by the I.O. he could not be apprehended for his interrogation in the present case. Page No.# 4/5 11. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the case records as well as the case diary. 12. It is seen that no new grounds has been brought in the present bail application, which was earlier rejected on last two occasions considering the incriminating materials against the present petitioner. 13. It is also seen that in three occasions, the petitioner had approached the learned Trial Court praying for the status report of the investigation and every report reveals that the investigation sufficiently progressed but the petitioner could not be interrogated who is absconding and inspite of repeated request and notices issued to the petitioner, he is not cooperating with the investigation of the case. 14. The case is also very serious in nature wherein the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.56,59,000/- has been alleged and being a police officer he had misappropriated such huge amount realized under the M. V. Act. 15. Further, it also reveals that the accused petitioner was continuing with the said offence but it was revealed only when the Accounts branch of the S.P. had identified the anomalies. 16. From the note of the I.O. it also reveals that the petitioner admitted his guilt at the time of his departmental proceeding and on the basis of which he was already suspended at present. 17. So, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be required to unearth some more facts involved in this case and accordingly, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Page No.# 5/5 18. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, namely, Pranjal Sonowal in said Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 11/2024 under Sections 409/420 IPC stands rejected. 19. This pre-arrest bail application accordingly, stands disposed of. 20. Return the case diary herewith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant