Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010011652025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/117/2025 MUKUT ALOM S/O OFIAL SK. @ ROFIUL HAQUE VILL- BHIMAPARA, P.O. HAT-SINGIMARI P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SSM-MANKACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SINHA, MR. H ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. B Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This application under section 482 BNSS filed by the petitioner, namely, Mukut Alom, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Page No.# 2/3 South Salmara PS Case No.203/2024 under section 318(4)/316(2) BNS. 3. The gist of accusations in this case is that on 22.11.2024, one Hamida Khatun has lodged an FIR before the Officer in charge of Kharbandha Police OP, inter alia alleging that the present petitioner, who is a driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.ML08J 1398 has sold the vehicle to some other person without intimating the owner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations leveled in the FIR are not true as the petitioner was only a driver of the informant. He further submits that he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 5. On the other hand the learned Addl. PP has produced the case diary of South Salmara PS Case No.203/2024 and has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary to show that the petitioner has conspired with some other co accused and have also sold out the vehicle and took his share in the proceed of sales. 6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. 7. Since there are sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where the relief of anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. Hence the prayer for anticipatory bail is Page No.# 3/3 rejected. 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant