Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010162202025 2025:GAU-AS:12081 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1792/2025 SRI MANAB JYOTI PHUKAN S/O- MINTOO PHUKAN. R/O- NO.208, CHANGLANG ROAD, WARD NO. 8, GUARD LAND, P.S.- MARGHERITA, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K GOGOI, MR. J. P. KACHARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 05-09-2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Sri Manab Jyoti Phukan who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Margherita P.S. Case No. 74/2025 under Sections 303(2)/317(4)/324(5)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Gogoi, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and is no way connected with the alleged offence. 5. It is a fact that the petitioner visited the place of occurrence along with one Basant Panika and also saw the vehicle and that apart he has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. It is the co-accused Basant Panika who had stolen the vehicle through his recovery van and thereafter, it was brought into the scrap shop, of which he came to know from the other co accused, but he is not at all involved in the alleged theft of the vehicle. 6. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the I.O. in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner, who is the main kingpin of the case and the entire incident had occurred only as per instruction of the present petitioner. 8. From the statements of the co-accused as well as other witnesses, it is seen Page No.# 3/4 that he is the person, who committed the theft of the vehicle, which was dragged through a recovery van and in that context he also took Rs.1,90,000/-. However, from the note of the I.O., it also reveals that he is also involved in similar kind of offence of theft etc., and had the criminal antecedents and as such, his custodial interrogation will be required for investigation of the case and accordingly, Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. PP raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused petitioner. 9. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case diary. 10. On perusal of the case diary as well as from the note of the I.O. and other materials, it is seen that the present accuse petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence and he is the main kingpin of the case under whose instruction the entire offence was committed with the help of other co-accused. 11. From the evidence of some of the witness it also reveals that the petitioner along with two other co-accused persons came to the place of occurrence in a Maruti WagaonR Car along with a recovery van and with the help of said recovery van, the dumper vehicle was dragged and it was sold to the scarp shop of one Arun Sahu, wherein the vehicle was cut into places and it was sold to different places. 12. It also reveals that some of the parts of the vehicle are already recovered, but there are some more parts of the dumper vehicle is yet to be recovered and some of the co-accused persons are also absconding till date. 13. From the materials available in the case dairy it reveals that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner will be required for the interest of proper investigation of the case and also to unearth some more facts about the case and involvement of the other co accused persons. More so, during investigation, the I.O. has also gathered information that the present petitioner is also involved in similar kind of offence and has the criminal antecedent. Page No.# 4/4 14. Considering the entire aspects of the case and the materials available in the case diary as well as the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage. 15. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner namely, Sri Manab Jyoti Phukan in connection with Margherita P.S. Case No. 74/2025 under Sections 303(2)/317(4)/324(5)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 stands rejected. 16. Return the case diary herewith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant