Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010202672025 2025:GAU-AS:12869 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2180/2025 ADIL AND ANR S/O DEEN MOHAMMAD RESIDENT OF K-1142, P.S. LOHIA NAGAR, MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH PIN-250002. 2: ADNAN S/O MD. SHAKEEL R/O 220 BSUP NASHIRAM COLONY P.S. LOHIA NAGAR DIST. MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH PIN-250002 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z HUSSAIN, MR. RASHIDUL ISLAM,MS B B AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 18.09.2025 Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners, namely, Adil and Adnan, have prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Manja P.S. Case No. 19/2024, under Section 379/411 of IPC. 3. The allegations in the FIR dated 03.008.2024 lodged by one S.I.(P) Swamdwn Swrgiary stating inter alia that theft occurred from one Bikramsingh Engti, where some mechanical equipments, mobile phones etc. were stolen. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners. He has raised objection against the prayer of the petitioners. 5. I have perused the case diary along with the bail objection in which the investigating officer has contended that custodial interrogation is very much necessary for full investigation and crack down, on the connected chains. Stolen mobile tower unit was recovered by Delhi police from the present petitioners, who are based in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. It appears that NWA and P&A have already been issued against them more than once. 7. In the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. Reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 5 that “thus, it is obvious that the position of law, which was being followed with alacrity, is that in cases where an accused against whom non-bailable warrant is pending and the process of proclamation under Section 82/83 CrPC is issued, is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.” A departure from this rule might be made only in Page No.# 3/3 exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, I do not find such exceptional circumstances – therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected at this stage. 8. The petition stands disposed of. 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant