Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010140842025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1527/2025 SRI RUPAK SARKAR S/O- NADIRAM SARKAR, R/O- VILLAGE- NO.2 AMRITPUR, P.S. AND P.O.- SILAPATHAR, DIST.- DHEMAJI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U DUTTA, MR. B. KUMAR,B DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 Heard Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/3 Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Rupak Sarkar, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Silapathar P.S. Case No. 123/2025 (corresponding to Papu Hills Police Station Zero FIR Case No. 01/2025), registered under Section 309(4)/118/126/127/3(5) of BNS r/w Section 25/27 of Arms Act. 3. The allegation in the Ejahar dated 01.06.2025 in a nutshell is about nine persons, unknown going in a vehicle at midnight and using weapons like guns etc. while committing the said illegal act and demanded ransom money for which they were forced to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/-. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence. The allegation against the petitioner is baseless and concocted. 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 submits that some of the accused persons arrested during investigation, have implicated the present petitioner as well. The investigation materials have prima facie implicated the involvement of the petitioner. The arms have not yet been recovered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection against the prayer of the petitioner. Investigation is still in progress. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/3 parties. I have also perused the case diary. 7. 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