Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010031782025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/349/2025 BISWAJIT PHUKAN AND ANR. S/O- NOLIN PHUKON, R/O- BARUAHBAMUNGAON (PART), PS - DERGAON, SUB DIV GOLAGHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785703 2: ANSUMAN DUTTA S/O TARUN DUTTA RO PARBATIYAGAON JORHAT ASSAM P.S. PULIBOR SUB- JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785006 PH. 700261571 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR. J N SUWAI,S YESMIN,B ALI SK,MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Page No.# 2/4 ORDER Date : 12.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioners who are apprehending arrest in connection with Sibsagar P.S. Case no. 04/2025. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 08.01.2025 one Rajib Kashyap had lodged an FIR before the Officer In-Charge of Sibsagar Police Station inter alia alleging that the informant is the proprietor of a car rental service named as (Advance Car Rental Service) and it has come to the notice of the informant that one vehicle namely, Mahindra Scorpio S11 bearing registration no. AS-01 FK6879 was taken on rent and the person who hired the vehicle was repeatedly disconnecting the GPS and deviated from the agreed road. It is also stated in the FIR that the vehicle was taken somewhere else without the knowledge of the first informant. On receipt of the said FIR, Sibsagar P.S Case no. 04/2025 was registered under Section 303(2) of BNS. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the petitioners were allowed to go on interim bail by order dated 17.02.2025, however, due to medical condition they could not appear before the Investigating Officer and defaulted appearing before the Investigating Officer within 7 (seven) days from the date of the interim bail order as directed by this Court. 5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the meanwhile the vehicle in question has already been recovered and the main accused has been arrested. He further submits that the petitioners are no way Page No.# 3/4 involved in the offence alleged in this case and prays for allowing the petitioners to go on anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner no. 2 namely, Anshuman Dutta on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the said petitioner. However, as against petitioner no. 1, he fairly submits that there are not much incriminating material justifying his custodial detention. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case diary of Sibsagar P.S Case no. 04/2025. Since, after going through the case diary it appears that against petitioner no. 1, namely, Biswajit Phukan there are not much incriminating material in the case diary and his custodial detention may not be necessary. Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. The said petitioner (Biswajit Phukan) is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Sibsagar P.S Case no. 04/2025 within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of this order and to co-operate with the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority with following conditions :- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer; and ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer. 8. As regards petitioner no. 2 is concerned it appears that though he was Page No.# 4/4 granted interim anticipatory bail on 17.02.2025, however, he has defaulted in appearing before the Investigating Officer and has failed to comply with the directions of this court. 9. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not appear before the Investigating Officer due to medical conditions, however, no documents have been furnished to substantiate the said submission. Moreover, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner no. 2 in record, the prayer for the anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 2, namely, Ansuman Dutta is hereby rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant