Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010251012024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3114/2024 DHARMESWAR ROY S/O LATE JAGAT DIPEN ROY R/O SORONIA, SAI KRIPA BHAWAN, HOUSE O. 2A, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 09.01.2025 Heard Mr. Y.S.Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.R.Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner Dharmeswar Roy praying for releasing him on pre-arrest bail Page No.# 2/3 apprehending arrest in connection with Chamdmari PS Case No. 246/2024 (GR No.5914/2024)u/ss 61(2)/111(2)/316(2)/318(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023. The present petitioner claims to be in the business of providing vehicles to different persons on rent basis. Therefore, he published an advertisement in the newspaper showing his interest in taking vehicles on rent so that he can use it in his business. In response to the said advertisement, the informant who is the owner of the Innova Crysta vehicle being Regd. No.AS-01-EG-9123 by contacting with the petitioner had an agreement that the petitioner shall pay monthly rent of Rs.65,000/- to the informant. Subsequently, it was found that GPS system of the vehicle was switched off. More interestingly , the message came from IDFC First Bank to the informant that his vehicle will be sold. Mr. Mannan has submitted that the vehicle was recovered from a shop but not from the present petitioner. Mr. Kaushik on the other hand submits that the present petitioner is regularly involved in such offences and a number of such cases are more than seven. Mr. Kaushik further submits that the petitioner takes vehicles on rent and later on sells the vehicle to some other persons. Mr. Kaushik therefore, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. I have considered the submission of both the sides. This court is of the opinion that there is sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner and he does not deserves to be given the privilege of pre- arrest bail The pre-arrest bail application is dismissed and disposed of. Return the case diary. JUDGE Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant