Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010262872024 2025:GAU-AS:532 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3261/2024 BARIK ALI AHMED S/O FAJAL HOQUE VILL- SONAPUR KACHUTALI PART, P.S. SONAPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN-782402 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN, MR. M ALOM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 20.01.2025 Heard Mr. M. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 191/2024, under Sections 191(2) /191(3) /149 / 121(2) /132 / 117(2)/118(2)/109/324 (4)/61(2)/125/324 (5) of BNS read with Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved in the alleged offence. It is a fact that during the eviction drive, around two thousand people gathered at the site, and some of them were arrested and granted bail. However, the petitioner was not involved in the alleged offence, as he is not the person whose land was subject to eviction at the place of the incident. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the addressed locality, and there is no chance of absconding. Therefore, he prays for the grant of pre-arrest bail and submits that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions imposed and is also ready to co-operate with the investigating agency, if permitted. In this context, Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there is sufficient material collected by the I.O during the investigation Page No.# 3/3 against the accused/petitioner. The case diary reveals that the petitioner was the main person who instigated others not to vacate the land and was the principal organizer behind the entire incident. He further submitted that during the incident, around 25 police personnel sustained injuries, two civilians died, and arms were recovered from some of the co-accused. Therefore, he raised an objection and submitted that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of the investigation. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case diary, which reveals that the petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence as the prime conspirator who instigated people not to vacate the site. It is also noted that the eviction drive is still ongoing. Accordingly, I find that custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner may be necessary to unearth some more facts of the case and accordingly, I am of the view that this is not a fit case, where, the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the accused/petitioner at this stage and accordingly, the same stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant