Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010113262025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1174/2025 BHABAKRISHNA BARMAN S/O LATE PRAFULLA BARMAN R/O AMIYA NAGAR CHANDMARI P.S.CHANDMARI DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PH. NO. 9954684695 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 17.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Page No.# 2/3 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Bhabakrishna Barman, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kaliabar Police Station Case No. 42/2025, and presently Dipsur P.S. Case No. 524/2024 under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316/314 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 02.05.2024, one Parashjyoti Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabar Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner took one Mohendra Bolero car bearing Registration No. AS-12-AK-2777 on agreement with the informant. The terms of agreement was that the petitioner would pay Rs. 28,000/- per month as a rent for the same vehicle for three years. 4. However, it is alleged that after paying the rent for six months, the petitioner failed to pay the monthly rent as agreed between the parties. 5. It is also alleged that thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in connection with some case and after getting released from the judicial custody, he failed to pay the money as promised and the vehicle, which the petitioner took on agreement was not returned back. 6. It is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner took on rent several vehicles from other persons including the relatives of the informant. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was unable to pay the monthly rent to the informant as he was detained in connection with Cyber Branch P.S. Case No.17/2024. He also submitted that the petitioner has sublet the vehicle to some other person, who hails from Manipur and as the mobile phones of the petitioner were seized in another case, in which he was arrested, he is unable to contact the persons to whom he has sublet the vehicle. He further submits that as the situation in the State of Manipur is not conducive at present, he is unable to personally go there. Page No.# 3/3 8. It appears that previously the petitioner had been paying the installments for six months after entering into the agreement with the informant. But, subsequently because of his arrest in connection with the Cyber Branch P.S. Case No.17/2024, he was not in a position to repay the loan amount. After being granted bail by order dated 10.03.2025 in BA No. 253/2025 by this Court in the Cyber Branch P.S. Case No.17/2024, he had paid a further amount of Rs. 25,000/- online on 08.09.2025 to the informant. 9. Further, pursuant to interim protection granted in the present case by this Court, he has appeared before the I.O. and his statement has been recorded. It is also submitted that subsequently two of the vehicles have been recovered after he obtained custody of the mobile phones because of which he could contact the persons to whom he had given the vehicles on rent. 10. Having regard to the above, and the fact that the petitioner has been co- operating with the investigation as far as the present case is concerned, his custodial interrogation may not be required. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed, the order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 28.05.2025, is hereby made absolute upon the same conditions. 12. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant