Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010035142025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/389/2025 MAJIBUR RAHMAN AND ORS S/O AMJAD HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHUKULIBARIA, PO CHABOTI, PS NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST LAKHIMPUR ,ASSAM 787031 2: AJIJUR RAHMAN S/O AMJAD HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHUKULIBARIA PO CHABOTI PS NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 787031 3: AMANUR RAHMAN S/O MAJIBUR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHUKULIBARIA PO CHABOTI PS NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 78703 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR ROBIUL HOQUE, ALHAJJ I UDDIN,MRS. R MOMTAZ,H M I HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 18.03.2025 Heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 398/2024, under Sections 121(2)/118(2)/74/109/3(5) of the BNS, read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, this application under Section 482, BNSS is preferred by applicants, namely, Majibur Rahman, Ajijur Rahman and Amanur Rahman, for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. Notably, North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 398/2024 has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by SI Nabajit Deuri of North Lakhimpur P.S. on 19.12.2024. The essence of allegation against the present applicants is that on 18.12.2024, at about 9:45 p.m., while the informant, along with LNK Rajib Sonowal, WLNK Archana Neog and three other members of armed forces went to investigate a matter in connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. G.D. Entry No. 30, dated 18.12.2024, then the present applicants, along with some other persons prevented them from discharging their official duty and also assaulted them, and pelted stones to the police vehicle, and also attacked them with dao, lathi etc., and injured them and also outraged the modesty of the woman police personnel and also caused mischief of the vehicle. 4. Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is the second pre-arrest bail application and the first one, being AB No. 29/2025, was Page No.# 3/4 dismissed by this Court after perusing the case diary, vide order dated 24.01.2025. Mr. Uddin further submits that this application is filed on the ground that after rejection of the first application on 24.01.2025, about two months elapsed and in the meantime, except the main accused, all other accused have been arrested and released on bail and the investigation might have progressed and on such count, custodial interrogation of the present applicants may not be required, and therefore, it is contended to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the applicants by imposing any terms and conditions, and that they will appear before the I.O. as and when necessary and will cooperate with the investigation. 5. Per contra, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by producing the case diary before this Court, submits that no change of circumstances has occurred in the interregnum in favour of the applicants and that no new grounds have been assigned for filing this application after rejection of the first application on 24.01.2025. Further, by referring to the materials available in the case diary, Mr. Lahkar submits that investigation is still going on and only three other accused have been arrested in the meantime, and that custodial interrogation of the applicants is warranted in the interest of investigation, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this application. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and the order dated 24.01.2025, passed by this Court in AB No. 29/2025. 7. It appears that after perusing the case diary, this Court was pleased to dismiss the first application having found custodial interrogation of the present Page No.# 4/4 applicants necessary in the interest of investigation as the materials collected so far in the case diary show their complicity with the offence alleged. That perusal of the case diary indicates that investigation is still going on and though some of the accused have been arrested, yet in view of the materials available in the case diary, it cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the present applicants is not warranted in the interest of investigation. 8. The offences, as it appears from the FIR and the materials available in the case diary, are serious in nature. And having regards to the above, and also having regards to the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the applicants, and accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed. 9. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant