Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010241052025 2025:GAU-AS:15820 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2604/2025 DULAL CHAUHAN SON OF MADAN CHAUHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAWAIPUR, PS HOJAI, DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, SAMIM RAHMAN,MD A RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 20.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Dulal Chauhan, Page No.# 2/3 under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner, in connection with Lanka P.S Case No. 165/25025, registered under Sections 61(2)/336(3)/3373(5) of the BNS, 2023 The gist of the allegation is that on 09/08/2025 SI (UB) Bijoy Krishna Das of Lanka P.S. lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Lanka Police Station stating inter alia that, 06.08.2025, the DC Office, Hojai, vide Letter No. eCF No. 79618/DFA/448931, informed Lanka Police Station that a PRC certificate submitted by Aryan Kumar (Accused-4) for ex-Assam CAPF quota to CISF Unit LSTPP Lara, Raigarh was found suspicious; on 07.08.2025, the informant interrogated Aryan Kumar and Pinku Chauhan (Accused-3), who admitted Aryan kumar paid Rs.6,00,000/- online in installments to Pinku Chauhan, Jitendra Chauhan (Accused-6) and Birendra Chauhan (Accused-7) via Anand (Accused-1) and Luv Singh (Accused-2), while Pinku paid Rs.3,60,000/- to Gaonburah, Bijit Singh, Enghi (Accused-5) through Dulal Chauhan (Accused-8). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Dulal Chauhan that his role was limited to receive the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and handed it over to Gaonbura Bijit Singh, and that he had no role in the issuance of fake certificates. A perusal of the CD, it reveals sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner for which his custodial interrogation may be necessary, and therefore, this is not in a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. It is further provided that the petitioner if taken into custody, he shall not be subjected to torture. A prayer for anticipatory stands rejected. Page No.# 3/3 JUDGE Comparing Assistant