Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010155032025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1649/2025 TARUN KR MITRA AND ANR S/O. LATE TAPAN KR. MITRA, R/O. R.K. MISSION ROAD, WARD NO. 15, OPPOSITE FCI GODOWN, P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2: SYED NOIMUL HOQUE S/O. LATE SYED FAZLE RABBI R/O. WARD NO. 9 BIDYA BYE LANE P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N J DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.07.2025 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. N. J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance Cell. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioners namely, Tarun Kumar Mitra as well as Mr. Syed Noimul Hoque, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with vigilance P.S. Case No. 14/2025 under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316(2)/316(5) of BNS read with sections 13 (1) (a)/13 (2) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 17.04.2025, one Simul Sarkar and 5 others had lodged an FIR before the Office of Superintendent of Police, CM, Special Vigilance Cell, inter-alia, alleging that one Surya Baruah, the In-charge of DCWO, Dhubri, had indulged in corruption and had collected illegal gratification with help of the present petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the LDA cum Typist as well as Petitioner No. 2 is the UDA Assistant cum Accountant in the District Social Welfare Department Dhubri and they have been issued notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS and are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 24.07.2025 and 25.07.2025 respectively. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the investigation, however since, non-bailable provisions of law are involved in this case, they are apprehending that on their appearance they may be arrested by the Investigating Officer. 6. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance Cell submitted that the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is that the Investigating Officer Agency do not intend to arrest the petitioners if they cooperate in the investigation. He submits that the date of appearance before the Investigating Officer, i.e. 24.07.2025 has not yet lapsed and if the petitioners Page No.# 3/3 complies with the notice there is no question of arresting them, in view of the provisions contained in Section 35(5) and 35(6) of BNSS. 7. In view of the submissions made by learned Special Public Prosecutor, this Court is also of the view that since the date of appearance before the Investigating Officer has not yet lapsed and the petitioners can very well appear before the Investigating Officer on the said date and comply with the notice, hence, at this stage there is no apprehension of their getting arrested in connection with the above mentioned case. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of with directions to both the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer in compliance with the notice under Section 35(3) on the date fixed in those notices. 8. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant