Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010222002025 2025:GAU-AS:15242 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2404/2025 SHRI SIMANTA GOGOI ALIAS MUNTI GOGOI SON OF SHRI SANTIRAM GOGOI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RATANPUR GOAN, P.S.- BORPATHAR, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MR K J SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 11-11-2025 Heard Mr. P Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner, viz., Shri Simanta Gogoi @ Munti Gogoi has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Sarupathar Police Station Case No. 50/2025 registered under Page No.# 2/3 Sections 308(6)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR dated 07.09.2025 reveals that the petitioner along with another went to the office of the informant and after taking him out from his office questioned him about certain matters and thereafter, it is alleged that they demanded money to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and compelled him to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the account of one Sri Jayanta Gogoi and that later the petitioner along with another again went to the office of the informant and demanded the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- and also had threatened to defame him. 4. Mr. P Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation mentioned in the said FIR was a concocted one and that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the offence narrated in the same and that the petitioner had not taken any money from the informant. 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the allegations in the FIR shows that money was demanded by the petitioner along with another and that some part of the money was also transferred to the account of another person taken from the informant. 6. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that pursuant to interim protection granted by this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement has been recorded. It also appears from the Case Diary that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in the account of some other person by the other informant for the benefit of the present petitioner. Since the petitioner has already been interrogated by the Investigating Officer and having regard to the nature of the allegations, the custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary. Page No.# 3/3 7. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The interim bail granted vide order dated 26.09.2025 is hereby made absolute upon the same conditions. 8. Petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant