Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010156202025 2025:GAU-AS:10792 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1694/2025 DIGANTA DAS S/O ASHWINI DAS R/O AMBARI, FATASIL P.S. FATASIL AMBARI DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M CHOUDHURY, MR. S M MOLLAH,MR. M MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 13-08-2025 Heard Mr. S M Mollah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 368/2025 u/s 305(c) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mollah that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved in committing theft of the mobile handset. Further it is fact that one of the co-accused, namely, Dipankar had handed over four mobile handsets to him asking him to sell the mobile handsets. At the time of receiving the mobile handsets the petitioner was not aware that those mobile handsets are stolen one. However, coming to know about the same, his family member returned all the mobile handsets to police station. He further submitted that the accused is charged u/s 305(c) BNSS which is not applicable in case of present petitioner. He received those mobile handsets only to sell without having any knowledge that those mobile handsets were stolen one. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner and he was the one of the co-accused who along with two others has committed theft and also shared those mobile handsets amongst themselves with a view to sell to other persons. In pursuant to that he already sold one handset to one person and also gifted one to other person. 6. Considering the materials available in the Case Diary, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be required for purpose of investigation. 7. After hearing the entire submissions made by learned counsel for both sides Page No.# 3/3 and facts and circumstances of the case, I have also perused the Case Diary and it is seen that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient materials against the present petitioner. Hence, I do not find it a fit case to extent the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant