Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010238052025 2025:GAU-AS:14693 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2568/2025 ROBIN BISHNOI S/O SRI HANS RAJ BISHNOI RESIDENT OF BANDARDEWA, STILL PLAN, PS BANDARDEWA, DISTRICT PAUMPARE, STATE ARUNCHAL PRADESH VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, RAILWAY Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR K THAKUR,MR. S SARKAR,S YESMIN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned CGC for the respondent. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with RPF/POST/HMY/AT NLP Case No. 02/2025 registered under Page No.# 2/3 Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act. 3. The instant case relates to missing of some wires owned by the Railways and an enquiry was conducted for the same and on completion of the enquiry, a final report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the same was placed before the Court of Special Railway Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur and the said Court had issued notice to the informant. However, on 16.10.2025, the Enquiry Officer had submitted objection to the acceptance of the final report and had prayed to proceed with the case. The Enquiry Officer had furnished certain documents alongwith the prayer before the Court and the Court had fixed the subsequent date. 4. In the meantime, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer had issued notice under Section 9(1)&(2) of the RP (UP) Act, 1966. The learned counsel as such submits that after submitting the final report, on completion of the enquiry, the notice to the petitioner was bad in law and as such, he prays for bail. 5. Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned CGC for the respondent submits that materials were collected by the Enquiry Officer in connection with investigation of the other cases and as such, in the instant case, he has submitted objection to the acceptance of the final report before the Court and as such, has objected to the bail. 6. It is however seen that the Court of Special Railway Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur had seen the final report and had issued notice to the informant and that the informant later objected to the acceptance of the final report and the proceedings is on. 7. In view of the submissions, this Court deems it fit to release the petitioner Page No.# 3/3 on pre-arrest bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with 1 local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 (seven) days from today and will co-operate with the investigation. 2. The petitioner will not temper with the evidence or influence any other witnesses connected with the instant case. 3. The petitioner will not leave the place of residence without the permission of the arresting authority. 8. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant