Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010217662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3147/2025 HEMANTA RABHA SON OF NAGEN RABHA R/O SILUK, BAKHRAPARA, P.S. DUDHNOI, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL, P GANDHIYA,MR A BRAHMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 25.09.2025 Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondents. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Hemanta Rabha, who is stated to be in custody since 16.08.2025 and seeking regular bail in connection with Goalpara P.S Case No. 159/2025 under Sections 318 (4)/ 316(2)/303(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegations in the ejahar dated 15.08.2025, lodged by one Imran Ali is that the accused took on hire his father’s Hyundai i20 Magna vehicle, bearing registration no. AS-01/BQ-1805, on a lease, but the lease amount was not paid and later, he came to know that the vehicle had been fraudulently sold to another person. It is also alleged that accused has deceived other people also by this modus operandi. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused has not been noticed and sufficient reasons have not given for arresting him without giving notice. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that earlier bail application was rejected by this Court on 11.09.2025 and the new grounds added in the subsequent bail petition are that additional length of detention and the fact that the I/O has not given sufficient justification for dispensing with a notice before arresting the accused as required under Section 35(3) (a) to (e) and as held in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 6. The case diary as called for is received. 7. The learned Addl. P.P. fairly submits that last endorsement of investigation is on 25.08.2025. The learned Addl. P.P. has reiterated that as many as seven vehicles have been recovered from the accused and he is habitually involved in such offences. The prosecution side has opposed this bail as well. Page No.# 3/3 8. The relevant portions pertaining to the said notice has been placed before the Court. I have seen the previous orders regarding the said aspect and I agree that there was not much discussion regarding the said contention regarding arrest without notice. 9. The learned counsel submits that the grounds mentioned for arresting without notice do not satisfy the criteria laid down in the aforementioned statutory provisions in the principles of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). In this regard, the order of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.09.2025 in Bail Appln. 2764/2025 has been annexed and I have perused the same. I find some force in the said contentions. 10. It is also revealed that after in the last date of rejection, there is no further investigation. It has to be kept in mind because of the autumn break, the next few days will be holidays in this Court. 11. Keeping various aspects in mind and also the length of detention (40 days), I accept this subsequent bail petition and therefore, the accused/petitioner herein is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Court and subject to the conditions that:- (i) They shall not hamper or tamper with evidence of the case. (ii) They shall not indulge in any illegalities. 12. This bail application stands disposed of accordingly. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant