Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010213592025 2025:GAU-AS:13041 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2313/2025 MANTOSH KR SHAH S/O RAMPHAL SHAH R/O VILL- KHEREMA KACHARI P.O. AND P.S. DORHOLIA, PIN-785631, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP.B Y THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D CHUTIA, MOHAN SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. D.Chutia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/3 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mantosh Kr. Shah, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 130/2025, under Sections 303(2)/317(2)/318(4)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 16.08.2025, one Pinku Kumar had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Sonapur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that he had hired a 14 wheeler open body Truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-JC-5643 on rent to carry 16 tone 500 Kg of Tin from Sonapur to Silchar. 4. It is also stated in the FIR that one driver namely, Utpal Das, entrusted to drive the vehicle and take the consignment from Sonapur to Silchar. However, on 14.08.2025, when the driver was tried to contact over phone, his mobile phone was found to be switch off and no whereabouts of the vehicle was allowed. 5. It is stated in the FIR that the informant therefore, suspected that the goods might have been stolen. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence. He is the registered owner of the vehicle and the accusation has been made against the driver only. He, however, submits that police is searching for him. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that some of the co-accused have been granted protection by this Court. Page No.# 3/3 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and the accusation levelled in the FIR, is mainly against the driver of the vehicle, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Sonapur P.S. Case No. 130/2025. 9. In view of above, the above-named petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Sonapur P.S. Case No. 130/2025 within a period of 7(seven) days from the date of this order and co- operate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period, in the event of his arrest, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; and ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer. 10. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant