Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010155062025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1650/2025 SAYEED AHMED LASKAR @ MIMO LASKAR S/O. MOIN UDDIN LASKAR, R/O. VILL. BERENGA, BERENGA PART - III, P.O. BERENGA, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788005. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP., ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 17.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, Sayeed Ahmed Laskar @ Mimo Laskar, apprehending arrest in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 42/2025 registered u/s Page No.# 2/2 316(5)/318(3)/314/61(2)/180 of BNS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the case diary and submitted that one of the prime accused Sadiqur Rahman Choudhury had borrowed some money from the petitioner and when he was unable to pay, the petitioner agreed to keep his vehicle for some time, but the petitioner was unaware that the said vehicle was part of group of vehicles which were taken on hire by the said Sadiqur Rahman Choudhury and others and said to be fraudulently sold to other people. 4. Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public prosecutor, Assam submits that on the basis of the case diary the said vehicle was indeed recovered from the present petitioner. 5. Upon perusal of the case diary and the statement of some of the witnesses, I find that they tell a somewhat different story regarding the involvement of the present petitioner. The materials prima facie indicate the association of the present petitioner as well in the activities of the Sadiqur Rahman Choudhury. There are materials to indicate that the petitioner along with other accused was involved in selling some of the vehicle. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, the instant matter does not appear to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected and disposed of. 8. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant