Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010034012025 2025:GAU-AS:3221 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/424/2025 SUNIL TERANG S/O DHANIRAM TERANG, RESIDENT OF OK KARENG, VILLAGE KULAI GAON, VTC OKRANG PATHAR, PO OKRANG,DIST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM 782481 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KHANDAKAR, MR P J DUTTA,MISS. J GOGOI,MR B P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24-03-2025 Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner Sunil Terang, who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Bakalia Police Station Case No. 32/2024 registered under Section 61(2)/179/180 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024. 2. Heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The petitioner is apprehending arrest for dealing in fake currency notes which have been found to be in possession of the accused named in the FIR. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is apprehending arrest only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. There is no direct allegation in the FIR against the petitioner and on the basis of the statement of the co-accused the petitioner cannot be roped in connection with this case. The petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail as no case has been made out against the petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. The statement of the co-accused clearly reveals the depth of involvement of the petitioner in dealing with fake currency notes. There is indeed allegation in the FIR that the petitioner is complicit. The petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the gravity of offence. 6. I have considered the submissions with circumspection and have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. It appears that at this juncture investigation may be adversely affected if the petitioner is insulated by an order granting pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 3/3 7. Petition stands rejected at this stage. 8. In terms of the above observation, this Anticipatory Bail application stands rejected. 9. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant