Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010001632025 2025:GAU-AS:1433 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/20/2025 GAJENDRA BISWAS AND 2 ORS S/O HARENDRA BISWAS, R/O VILL- AMARA PATHAR, P.O. AMARA PATHAR, P.S. SONAPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: ARADHAN MANDAL S/O KALACHAN MANDAL R/O VILL AMARA PATHAR P.O. AMARA PATHAR P.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3: RAMJAY SARKAR S/O NARAYAN SARKAR R/O VILL- AMARA PATHAR P.O. AMARA PATHAR P.S. SONAPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P BASFORE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 12.02.2025 Heard Mr M Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners, 1) Gajendra Biswas, 2) Page No.# 2/3 Aradhan Mandal and 3) Ramjay Sarkar, who have filed this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 217/2024 under Sections 191(2)/191(3)/121(2)/132/ 117(2)/118(2)/324(5)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Heard Mr P Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 3. The gist of the case is that during the Diwali, there was an illegal public gambling and the police went to stop the gambling. Several villagers and the public assaulted the police and damaged the police vehicle. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that most of the miscreants have been named, but the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, have not been named in the FIR. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary, against the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for bail, on the ground of parity as co-accused and the main accused named in the FIR have been granted bail in connection with AB No. 23/2025, vide order dated 07.02.2025, passed by this Court. 7. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. 8. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 9. Investigation has progressed substantially. It appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required. 10. I have also considered the submission that the petitioners are willing to abide by Page No.# 3/3 any stringent bail conditions, if imposed upon them. 11. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the conditions that : (i) the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within one week and cooperate with the investigation, (ii) the petitioners shall refrain from such activities with which they are alleged and, (iii) the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional Court/Eleka Magistrate without prior permission. 11.1. On breach of any of the bail conditions, pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners shall automatically stand cancelled. 12.. In terms of the above observation, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. 13. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant