Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010049752025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/566/2025 BAPAN MAZUMDAR S/OBRAHMALLAL MAZUMDAR RESIDENT OF AMARA PATHAR, P.S. SONAPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM,PIN-782402 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR A H AHMED,MR R ISLAM,MR. A F N U MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 14.05.2025 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. AFNU Mollah, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Bapan Mazumdar, who is apprehending his arrest in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Sonapur PS Case No. 217/2024 under Sections 191 (2)/ 191(3)/ 121(2) / 132/ 117(2) / 118(2) / 324(4) / 324(5)/ 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier occasion, the application for anticipatory bail filed by the present petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2025 in AB Case No. 3279/2025. However, in the meanwhile one of the co-accused, namely, Rupak Mandal has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and sufficient time has elapsed since the date of rejection. On that ground, he has approached this Court again seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is also ready to cooperate with the investigation. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP has produced the case diary of Sonapur PS Case No. 217/2024. He has submitted that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner was rejected on earlier instance after perusal of the Case Diary. After finding sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner, nothing has changed in favour of the petitioner since then and therefore no new grounds has appeared and therefore he prays for rejecting the prayer for bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary. 6. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are materials against the present petitioner of having assaulted the police personnel in this case. It also appears that on the same ground the earlier anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court nothing has changed in the said observations. Hence, this Court finds Page No.# 3/3 no new grounds to pass any favourable order under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the present petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant