Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010201482025 2025:GAU-AS:13322 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2171/2025 RUPAK SARKAR SON OF NADIRAM SARKAR R/O NO. 2 AMRITPUR P.S. AND P.O. SILAPATHAR DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM PIN-787059. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SK S N MOHAMMAD, FARNAZ N A HUSSAIN,MR A IKBAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 24.09.2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Page No.# 2/3 Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Rupak Sarkar, has prayed for granting pre- arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Silapathar P.S. Case No. 123/2025 (corresponding to Papu Hills Police Station Zero FIR Case No. 01/2025), registered under Section 309(4)/118/126/127/3(5) of BNS r/w Section 25/27 of Arms Act. 3. The allegation in the Ejahar dated 01.06.2025 in a nutshell is about nine persons forcefully taking the informant and his companian in a vehicle at late hours and used weapons like fire arms, while committing the said illegal act and upon demanding ransom money, which they were forced to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- by UPI. 4. This is a subsequent bail application and earlier bail petition was rejected on 01.08.2025 by this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some grounds were not taken in the earlier bail petition and filed by instant new petition adducing those grounds and in this regard an additional affidavit have also been filed and in this context has drawn my attention to para No.3 and 4 thereof. 6. On the other hand, the prosecution after receiving the case diary submits that the subsequent petition does not have merit as investigation has reveals complicity of the present accused also in the alleged offences, which are of a serious nature committed at around mid-night. 7. It is submitted by the learned prosecution that the contentions projected by the petitioner side by way of new grounds – that the petitioner actually intervened in a quarrel between two groups and thereafter, he was falsely Page No.# 3/3 implicated – does not find support from the materials in the case. 8. The case diary has placed before this Court and upon perusing the statements of some of the witnesses and also co-accused, I find force in the said contentions of the prosecution. 9. As per the investigation revealed by materials, the accused persons including the present petitioner are alleged to have jointly committed the offence against the victims. 10. In the given facts and circumstances, this case may not be a appropriate case for grant of anticipatory bail – especially as the investigation is also not yet completed. 11. In such view of the matter, the petition stands rejected. 12. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant