Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149392025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1584/2025 PRANJAL BEZBARUAH SON OF DEBEN BEZBARUAH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 6, ZOO ROAD TINIALI, BHASKAR NAGAR, GEETANAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT KAMRUP(M), PINCODE- 781021, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL, MR A BRAHMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Pranjal Bezbaruah, who is appending his arrest in connection Page No.# 2/4 with Chandmari Police Station Case No. 123/2025 registered under Sections 61(2)(a)/109(1)/126(2)/309(4)/351(2)/296 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 07.05.2025, one Kumar Debasish Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Chandmari Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on that day at about 2:45 PM when the informant along with his friend Tanmoy Kazi and Raktim Ranjan Bora were returning from their rental accommodation to Jalukbari, when they reached near commerce point opposite Gauhati Commerce College, one Dishan Bhagabati along with 7-8 unknown persons assaulted them and also threatened them to kill them. It is also alleged that slang language were used on them by the assailants and their golden chain was also snatched along with some money. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, police is searching for him. He also submits that the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. 5. He has further submitted that in the meanwhile, two petitioners who were arrested, namely, (1) Rinku Talukdar and (2) Pradip Kalita, were already granted bail by this Court on 11.06.2025, in Bail Application No.1696/2025. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation, and therefore, he prays for allowing him to go on anticipatory bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the co-accused persons were granted bail only after they completed about 34 days of detention. 8. He submits that though, the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, the case diary will reveal the truth. Page No.# 3/4 9. Hence, he prays for calling of the case diary. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, and have gone through the materials available on record. 11. On perusal of the order dated 11.06.2025, passed in Bail Application No.1696/2025, it appears that while granting bail to two of the co-accused, this Court, after the perusal of the case diary have observed that, there has been sufficient progress in the investigation. 12. Also in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR, this Court is of considered opinion that, if he cooperates in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 13. Hence, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer of Chandmari Police Station Case No. 123/2025, within a period of seven days from the date of this order and cooperate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest in connection with the above mentioned case, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation, ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. Page No.# 4/4 14. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant