Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010241972025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2602/2025 ANUJ KUMAR BORAH S/O KAILASH BORAH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NEAR NAMGHAR BIHAGURI, P.S. TEZPUR DISTRICT- SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SARMA, MS M KAKOTY,S HAZARIKA,MS R SAHIN,MS. B BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 06.04.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, Anuj Kumar Borah is seeking Anticipatory Bail apprehending arrest in connection with an FIR dated 06.02.2026, which is registered as Gohpur Police Station case No. 20/2025 registered under Sections 318(2)/318(3)/316(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the husband of the informant has by way of an agreement executed between him and the petitioner had handed over the vehicle of the said husband of the informant bearing registration number AS-32/A/7030 and as per conditions of the agreement, the petitioner was supposed to repay the balance outstanding instalments to the finance company, and after clearance of all dues, the ownership of the vehicle will be transferred to the petitioner. However, the petitioner not only failed to pay the monthly instalments but sold the vehicle to one Rajiv Gogoi and thereby cheated the informant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, and that he is suffering from some mental problems. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam submits that the vehicle in question is yet to be recovered, and the person to whom the vehicle was sold by the petitioner is untraceable. And therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary. 6. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail, as custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for recovery of the vehicle. Page No.# 3/3 7. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. 8. Send back the Case Diary. 9. The Anticipatory Bail petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant