Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010151572025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1642/2025 ABDUR ROUF AHMED S/O- RAHIJ AHMED. R/O- PADMAPARA, P.O.- CHENGA, P.S.- TARABARI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM , PIN-781305 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N BORUAH, MR. A. AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 04.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abdur Rouf Ahmed, who was apprehending his arrest in connection with Tarabari P.S. Case No. 27/2025 under Sections Page No.# 2/3 319(1)/336(3)/340(2) of BNS. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted interim bail by order dated 19.07.2025 and in pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and co-operated in the investigation. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Tarabari P.S. Case No. 27/2025 and has submitted that though the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer, however, he has violated the condition No. 1 imposed on him while granting interim bail to him as he has threatened the victim to withdraw the case against him. She submits that in this connection, the informants have also lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Tarabari Police Station on 01.09.2025. She submits that there is an endorsement made in the case diary by the Investigating Officer endorsing the said facts. Hence, she prays that the interim order may be vacated and the prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 6. It appears from the record that while granting interim bail to the petitioner, this Court had directed the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer and he shall co-operate in the investigation. However, from the case diary, it appears that he has violated the said condition as grant of anticipatory bail is discretionary in nature, the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner has to be clean on his part before he can avail the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. In the instant case, considering the materials against the petitioner in the case diary, this Court is left with no other option but to vacate the interim bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 19.07.2025 and dismiss this anticipatory bail application which this Court accordingly does. 8. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed. 9. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant