Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010254212025 2025:GAU-AS:15561 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2723/2025 ROBIUL HUSSAIN S/O-MUBARAK ALI R/O-VILLAGE-2NO JAMBARI, BAMUNIGAON P.S- BOKO, DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM PIN-781123 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DUTTA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 18-11-2025 Heard Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for granting Page No.# 2/4 pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant, namely, Robiul Hussain in connection with Boko P.S. Case No.341/2025, registered under Section 305 of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegation in the FIR, which was filed on 04.11.2025 is that during night hour, one accused, namely, Nur Mohammad Ali and his associates had committed theft of a battery worth approximately Rs.2,40,000/-. It was alleged that the entire incident of activity and the accused persons were captured in the CCTV footage. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant was not named in the FIR and he was not involved in the aforesaid alleged incident of theft as has been narrated in the FIR. He submits that though the accused applicant works in the same organisation, he is no way linked to the incident of theft. However, he apprehends his arrest because his house was searched by the police as well as a notice was handed over to his wife, namely, Nasira Begum wherein his name has been wrongly mentioned as Rubul Ali instead of Robiul Hussain. He further submits that notice was, in fact, not signed by any of the police or Investigating Officer. He submits that a bare perusal of the instant FIR will reveal that no ingredient of Section 305 BNS could be found. He submits that he is a law abiding citizen and he will cooperate with the investigation. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the FIR clearly shows that the theft has been committed and the investigation in the matter has been going on. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that, at this stage, pre-arrest bail should not be granted to the accused applicant Page No.# 3/4 5. This Court has gone through the materials brought before the Court on record and also heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is seen from the notice issued to the accused applicant that the notice was not signed by any of the police officer. It is further seen that name of the accused applicant is wrongly written in the notice. However, taking into account of the fact that the accused applicant is very much willing to cooperate with the investigation in the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that the accused applicant should be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail, at this stage. 6. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused applicant by the arresting authority, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-with a surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the arresting authority in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 341/2025, subject to following conditions: 1) That the accused applicant shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer within a period of 10(ten) days of passing of this order; 2) That the accused applicant shall not hamper or temper with the evidence of the instant case; and 3) That the accused applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation of the case by appearing before the I.O of the case, as and when call for by the I.O. 7. In view of the above aforesaid directions, the instant anticipatory bail Page No.# 4/4 application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant