Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010210092024 2025:GAU-AS:11442 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1034/2025 SUMIT NATH S/O SUBHAS NATH R/O HOUSE NO. 609, VILL- BOALJUR P.O. NARSINGPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MR K BISWAKARMA,MS B DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 27-08-2025 Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application u/s 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the FIR being Silcahar PS Case No. 373/2024 under Sections 120(B)/420/401/413/468 & 471 of IPC. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and is no way involved in the alleged offence and considering all the aspects of the case he was already granted anticipatory bail by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. But, in spite of obtaining the pre-arrest bail, the I/O is harassing the present petitioner by issuing notices one after another and accordingly the present petitioner has the apprehension that he may be charge-sheeted in connection with the case. Mr. Choudhury accordingly prayed that Case Diary may be called for and that may be perused to know the involvement of the present petitioner. 4. Mr. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that present petition is not at all maintainable as the petitioner is served with all the notices u/s 91 Cr.PC only for production of some documents for evidence. But, without complying the notices and without cooperating the investigation, the present petition has been filed seeking for quashing of the entire FIR. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Annexures filed along with the petition. It is seen that considering the prima facie materials in the case diary, he is allowed to remain on the privilege of pre-arrest bail. He being the Branch Manager, the notices were issued on him u/s 91 Cr.PC only for production of some documents and also to get some evidence. But, without complying those notices, the present petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR against the present petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 6. In view of this, I do not find any justifiable reason to proceed with the case and accordingly the present petition hereby stands rejected. 7. The criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant