Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010000642025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/12/2025 SANTOSH DAS AND ANR S/O LATE PABITRA DAS, R/O VILLAGE KHUDARADADHI, P.O. GERUA, PS. HAJO, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN 781102 2: MD RAHUL ISLAM S/O MD MAHRUM ALI R/O VILLGE BARIJANI P.O. PACHARIA PS. HAJO DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781104 MOBILE NO. 801159377 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM RE BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H MAURYA, MR. S K BHATTACHARYYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 29.01.2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with the Hajo P.S. Case No. 411/2024, under Sections 61(2)/418(4)/316(2) of the BNS, this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, is preferred by applicants namely, Santosh Das and Rahul Islam for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the said case has been registered on the basis of one FIR, lodged by one Chandra Sekhar Bhatta of K.D. Infra, on 03.10.2024. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that the informant had never purchased any land for his company, but he came to know that certain sale deeds, mutations and transactions exist under his company’s name, including potential resale of land as reflected in the revenue records and the same were made without his knowledge and authorization. 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that they are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, by producing the case diary before this court, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the material collected so far in the case diary shows the complicity of the applicants with the offence alleged in the FIR and that their names had appeared in the sale deed as witnesses. Mr. Goswami further submits that the investigation is still going on and if the privilege of pre-arrest bail is granted to the applicants at this stage, will hamper the investigation and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on Page No.# 3/3 record and also perused the case diary produced before this court with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. The case diary indicates that the IO has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the applicants. It further indicates that the investigation is still going on and enlarging the applicants on pre-arrest bail at this stage will hamper the investigation 8. In view of above, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicants and therefore, the same is dismissed. 9. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant