Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010155282025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1645/2025 BEDABRATA SAIKIA SON OF LATE NAREN SAIKIA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO. 5, KESHOB CHANDRA BORDOLOI PATH, P.O. JORHAT RESEARCH LAB, P.S. PULIBOR, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785006. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR, MR. BISWAJIT TALUKDAR,MR. A K HANNAN,MR M J QUADIR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance Cell. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, namely, Bedabrata Saikia, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15/2025 under Sections 13(1) (b)/13(2)/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 21.06.2025, one Alongbar Basumatary, Inspector of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge Vigilance Police Station, Assam, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner is found to have income disproportionate to his known source of income. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR dated 21.06.2025 has been lodged on the basis of various newspaper reports which was followed by a regular enquiry. He submits that during regular enquiry, the petitioner has co-operated with the Inquiry Officer. He further submits that after lodging of the FIR, the petitioner received a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and after receipt of this notice, he has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has co-operated in the investigation. However, now he apprehends that he may be arrested in connection with this case. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the petitioner to go on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that in this case the application under Section 482 is not maintainable as there is no apprehension of the petitioner getting arrested. He submits that in pursuant to the notice under Section 35(3), the petitioner has appeared and is co-operating in the investigation and at this stage, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, this Court is of considered opinion that even after appearance of the petitioner in pursuant to the issuance of notice to him under Section 35(3) of Page No.# 3/3 BNSS, he was not arrested and he had co-operated in the investigation, there appears to be no apprehension of the petitioner getting arrested in this case. 7. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant