Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010140432025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1468/2025 SURAJIT MEDHI S/O SRI PARMESWAR MEDHI R/O KALOI BARI P.S. KHETRI, GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R CHETRI, MR U SAIKIA,MR N MILI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, G TALUKDAR(INFORMANT),B J BARMAN (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 Heard Mr. R. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. B.J. Page No.# 2/3 Barman, learned counsel for the informant. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Surajit Medhi, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Khetri P.S. Case No. 47/2025, registered under Section 316(5)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of the allegation is the FIR is that the petitioner is a driver of the informant/Dimoria Goan Panchayat Samabay Samittee. The vehicle was used for transporting milk for sale. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner fraudulently printed duplicate coupons, sold milk at a higher price and thereby misappropriated a huge amount of money quantified at Rs. 21,70,560/-. Accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not issued any coupons for selling milk to any customers and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. There is an apprehension that if the petitioner appears before the investigating officer, he may be arrested. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation. Considering the background of the case, the benefit of pre-arrest bail may be extended to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and raised objection against the prayer of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence and there is sufficient incriminating materials found in the case diary against the petitioner. It is also submitted that several witnesses implicated the present petitioner and the FSL report has not yet been received. Investigation is still in Page No.# 3/3 progress. Considering the nature of the offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary also. 6. The learned counsel for the informant has expressed apprehension about prejudice to the remaining investigation by grant of bail and opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case diary. 8. Considering the materials available in the case diary as well as the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as this stage. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected, at this stage. 8. The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant