Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010241702024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3054/2024 EBRAHIM ALI S/O MUKTAL HUSSAIN R/O VILL- SHIMLABARI PART-II, P.O. CHAPAR P.S. CHAPAR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 25.02.2025 Heard Mr. M Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. By this application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, the petitioner, namely, Ebrahim Ali, has prayed for pre-arrest bail, who apprehends arrests in connection with Barpeta Road Police Station Case No. 131/2024. Page No.# 2/2 The informant owns a truck and drives the same also. He alleged that on 29.08.2024, he loaded 132 nos. of bags containing garlic from Shillong byepass and he was going towards Barpeta Road. When he reached Kalahbhanga, some people came in one bolero car and alto car stopped his vehicle. They forcefully took the informant away to an unknown place. Thereafter, Police from Chapor Police Station recovered the informant and on the basis of GPS tracking system, Chapor Police Station found the truck from where the consignments were missing. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. The Case Diary reveals that miscreants had stopped the truck and kidnapped the informant and had called the present petitioner and other persons over phone to take away the bags of garlic from the truck of the informant. Mr. Baishya has submitted that the consignments were loaded in the bolero car which have been taken away by the miscreants. Police recovered the bolero care also. During investigation, it came out that the present petitioner along with some other persons were also involved in the said offence. Having heard the learned counsel of both sides and considering the materials available in the case diary, this court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be given the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Allowing the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner at this stage may hamper the police investigation. Hence, the bail application is rejected. Bail application is disposed of. Return the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant