Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010205712025 2025:GAU-AS:17344 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2261/2025 SRI RINKU DAS S/O ANIL DAS R/O GOLAI NO. 1, P.O. AND P.S. DIGBOI, DIST.TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786171. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, MD S A MONDAL,Ms. R. R. BORAH,MR. A DEB Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 15-12-2025 Heard Mr. A. A. R. Karim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Digboi P.S. Case No. 81/2025 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/303(2) of the BNS, 2023 corresponding GR No. 180/2025. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Karim, learned counsel that after rejection of his Page No.# 2/3 earlier bail application, the present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail for the present petitioner. It is submitted that the present petitioner has purchased the vehicle from one Dipali Dutta and Biju Paul by entering into an agreement and on the basis of such agreement, he also paid EMI and subsequently, after payment of EMI, the informant side has refused to transfer the vehicle in his name and lodged the false case with some false and concocted allegation. He further submits that there was agreement of sale and the entire transaction is civil in nature. However, the petitioner is still ready to extend co-operation if he is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 4. Mr. Das, learned Addl. PP submitted that his earlier bail application was rejected after perusal of the case diary and there is no new ground in the subsequent bail application. He further submitted that in paragraph 6 of the earlier rejection order dated 23.07.2025 it was discussed in detail that as to how the petitioner has cheated the informant and without paying the EMI after taking the vehicle in rent has sold the vehicle to other person and with the help of some of the purchasers. Three vehicles have already been recovered. 5. He further submits that after the earlier rejection order, up-to-date case diary was called for and on perusal of the case diary which is up-to-date till 05.08.2025, there is some new development wherein one more victim had given statement bringing the same kind of allegation of cheating and misappropriation. He further submitted that the modus operandi of the present petitioner is same in all cases wherein he cheated the victims and hence, the custodial interrogation will be required to unearth some more facts of the case. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the case diary. Page No.# 3/3 7. Case diary reveals sufficient incriminating material against the present petitioner and from the materials available from the case diary it is seen that he entered into some agreement with some of the victims wherein he took the vehicles on rent with an assurance to pay the EMI but, without paying the EMI he sold the vehicle to other persons and with the help of some of the purchasers, some vehicles have been recovered by police. Thus, it is not a simple case of entering into an agreement of rent or sell but here in the instant case the allegation against the present petitioner is that in the name of rent agreement he cheated the persons and sold the vehicles to other persons. 8. So, considering all these aspects of the case, I find that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is required for the interest of investigation. 9. In view of the above, this bail petition stands rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant