Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010161282025 2025:GAU-AS:10944 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1742/2025 ROBIAL ISLAM S/O SHAJAMAL AHMED R/O VILL- SUAPATA PT.I, P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN- 783348 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, A A AHMED,S S AHMED,MR. A W MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 18-08-2025 Heard Mr. S.S. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Page No.# 2/4 State respondent. 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 Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 281/2024 u/s 61(2)/318(4)/316(3)/316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and in connection with Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 25/2025 u/s 316(3)/318(3)/318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner that present petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected in the alleged offence. It is a fact that he was engaged as a driver by one Robin Das on the particular day for transport some 30 tons of iron rod from Durgapur, West Bengal to Tinsukia and after bringing it to the destination he handed over the key of the vehicles and other documents to said Robin Das and he left to the other State. As he was engaged as a driver on temporary basis by said Robin Das, he left for other State and for that reason the informant could not make any contact with the petitioner. However, coming to know about lodging of the FIR he had filed the present anticipatory bail applications so that he can appear and can cooperate in the investigation of this case. He further submitted that there are contradictions in the two FIRs basically filed by one Saiful Islam who stated to be the owner of the vehicle and the another FIR lodged by one Ratan Dutta to claim the owner of the consignment. He submitted that in the first FIR lodged by Saiful Islam it is seen that as per allegation, he dropped both the handyman and one Kalam in Bilasipara and he fled with the vehicle. But, in the subsequent FIR it reveals that the informant had a video call with the handyman Page No.# 3/4 who showed us the vehicle with 1.5 tons of the iron rod. Thus, two contradictory statements have been made in the FIRs. However, he is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in the further investigation of this case. 4. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that two FIRs have been lodged in the Bagribari police station but subsequently it is found that the subject matter and cause of action in both the FIRs have been same. The I/O has amalgamated with both the FIRs and started the investigation. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that the present accused/petitioner is the main culprit in the case and he is the person who fled with the 30 tons of iron rod and it is suspected that he sold out rest of 1.5 tons of the iron rod to other person, which was loaded in the said vehicle. Further, he suspected there are sufficient incriminating materials so far collected but the I/O against the present accused/petitioner showing his direct involvement in the alleged offence and accordingly he submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 5. Hearing the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, I have perused the Case Diary whereby it is noticed that the I/O has got sufficient materials against the present petitioner and the statement made by two informants i.e Saiful Islam and Robin Das and from the statement of the handyman it reveals that he fled away with the truck in another destination and thereafter the truck was recovered from Barpeta Road with only 1.5 tons of rod which was loaded in the said truck. So considering the entire circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, I find that custodial interrogation may be required for the interest of investigation. In view of this I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner and accordingly Page No.# 4/4 both the petitions stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant