Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010214542025 2025:GAU-AS:13754 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2375/2025 SRI BIJAY TAMANG @ BIJAY LAMA S/O- LATE DHANBIR LAMA, R/O- VILL.- UMLAPHER, P.S. AND P.O.-ULUKUNCHI, DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782410. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA, MR R DHAR,MR. S UPADHAYA,MR. B B KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 15-10-2025 Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. This application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant, namely Sri Bijay Tamang @ Bijay Lama in connection with Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 159/2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 1019/2024 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Page No.# 2/2 The brief facts of the case as has been narrated in the FIR dated 14.08.2024 lodged by one Pankaj Pathak, the informant before the Officer In-Charge of Jogighopa Police Station alleging that the accused applicant along with two others named in the FIR misrepresenting him and some other persons took their personal documents including certain documents having their signatures on them. The accused applicant along with the other named accused persons used those documents for obtaining certain loans from financial institutions for buying vehicles. It was also alleged that though initially for couple of months, EMIs in respect of those loans had been paid by the accused applicant and others, subsequently they stopped the payment of EMIs. In view of the aforesaid stopping of payment EMIs, the financial institutions started pressurizing and harassing the informant for payment of the EMIs. After receipt of the FIR, the aforesaid Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 159/2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 1019/2024 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023was registered Learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant had also earlier approached this Court for granting him pre-arrest bail by filing Case No. AB 2790/2024 and the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024. The counsel for the accused applicant submits that the actual master mind in the whole incident is one Anup Pathak and the present accused applicant is no way linked to the alleged offence as mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that though his application filed earlier has been rejected by this Court, the accused applicant is pressing for the pre-arrest bail due to the fact that he has been suffering from various illness including Recurrent Tonsillitis and vertigo and he needs immediate medical attention from qualified doctors. He also submits that in the event of his arrest by the police authorities he shall be deprived of his medical attention and therefore prays that he should be granted pre-arrest bail with certain conditions as this Court deems so fit. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that in the instant pre-arrest bail application, the accused applicant has not brought any new grounds for consideration of this Court and the earlier pre-arrest bail application was rejected by this Court after due consideration of the case diary. Therefore, at this stage, no case made out by the accused applicant for granting him pre-arrest bail. This Court has considered the submissions made by the respective counsels appearing for parties and has also gone through the materials brought on record. After considering the entire issues involved in the instant case, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail at this stage and therefore, the instant pre-arrest bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant