Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010196472025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2102/2025 SURAJIT MEDHI SON OF PARMESWAR MEDHI R/O KALOI BARI P.S. KHETRI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R CHETRI, MR N MILI,MR U SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, Surajit Medhi, apprehending arrest in connection with Khetri P.S. Case No. 47/2025 registered u/s 316(5)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2) of BNS, 2023. Page No.# 2/2 3. The earlier bail application was rejected on 01.08.2025 on merit after perusal of the case diary. 4. The gist of the allegation is the FIR is that the petitioner is a driver of the informant/Dimoria Goan Panchayat Samabay Samittee. The vehicle was used for transporting milk for sale. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner fraudulently printed duplicate coupons, sold milk at a higher price and thereby misappropriated a huge amount of money quantified at Rs. 21,70,560/-. Accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that new ground is health issue of the petitioner drawing attention to the annexed documents but the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that these materials were available on the earlier time also. 6. On perusal of the case diary it appears that there has been some investigation after the date of rejection. Last endorsement on the case diary is up to 19.08.2025 and investigation is yet to be completed. Forensic examination report shows that the coupons are different, thereby indicating that the cupons seized from the petitioners are likely fake. 7. Considering the nature of the alleged offence and the alleged conduct of the petitioner, I do not find sufficient new ground to take a different view. 8. Accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected and disposed of. 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant