Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010148592025 2025:GAU-AS:9852 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1676/2025 JITEN TARO S/O MANIRAM TARO R/O VILL- KAT TISSOGAON BAGPANI P.S. DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. N ALAM R K Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 31-07-2025 Heard Mr. N. Alam R K, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Diphu P.S. Case No. 51/2025 under Sections 61(2)/338/339/341(2) BNS. It is submitted by Mr. Alam, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and his name is also not mentioned in the FIR. He further submitted that some of the co-accused persons, who were arrested in connection with this case, have already been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge and considering the same, the present petitioner may also be granted with the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail. However, he is ready and willing to co-operate with the I.O. in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with some interim protection. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP raised objection to the interim bail prayer of the petitioner and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The offence which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner along with other co-accused is very serious in nature, wherein he not only produced fake and forged documents through the bailors for a declared foreigner before Page No.# 3/4 the SP(Border), but also forged the signature of the higher Government officials to prepare those forged documents. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP submitted that one witness in her statement under Section 183 BNSS also stated that the petitioner along with other co- accused of the case, prepared the forged documents and used them in the name of two bailors, namely Rahul Terang and Sarkam Killing and also threatened them not to lodge any case against the present petitioner. Thereafter, the witness herself made a phone call to the I.O. giving entire details of the present petitioner along with others. Accordingly, he submitted that there may be some other associates along with the petitioner and hence custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required to unearth some more facts and accordingly, he raised objections submitting that the anticipatory bail prayer of the present petitioner may be rejected at this stage. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the materials available in the case diary, wherefrom it is seen that the I.O. had collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner, as submitted by the learned PP and from the case diary it further reveals that the present petitioner is fully involved in the offence, rather he is one of the main culprit in the entire offence, by obtaining the order from the Hon’ble High Court, he produced bailors before the SP(B) concerned for a declared foreigner, wherein in the name of the bailor some fake documents were produced. In view of the above, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant the privilege interim pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 4/4 Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Return the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant