Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010003512025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/72/2025 SANJIB HRISHI S/O PRABIN CHANDRA HRISHI, RESIDENT OF M.M.C ROAD, WARD NO. 7 DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM 788709 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : P J DAS, MR S DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : AB/70/2025 SANJIB HRISHI S/O PRABIN CHANDRA HRISHI RESIDENT OF M.M.C ROAD WARD NO. 7 DIST KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788709 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : P J DAS Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 11.02.2025 This is a common order for these two items. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. Both the applications have been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of Katigorah P.S. Case No. 110/2024 and Katigorah P.S. Case No. 111/2024. One FIR was lodged by the employee of the post office, whereas the other FIR was lodged by the customer of the post office. The employee of the post office has alleged that the present petitioner used to demand Rs.500/- whenever a new customer opens account in the post office. One customer has made a similar allegation stating that she had opened with an account by depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/-, but it was later on discovered that the present petitioner had actually credited an amount of Rs.3,000/- only. Mr. Kaushik has submitted that the post office authority has already initiated a departmental proceeding against the present petitioner. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. Page No.# 3/3 The post office authority has already imposed a punishment upon the present petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that the provision of the law as contained in 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is not applicable in the present case, because the petitioner does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the applications are dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Case diary shall be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant