Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010059282025 2025:GAU-AS:5054 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/654/2025 AM BAHADUR CHETRY R/O- HATISAR, FV, P/O- RUNIKHATA, SUB-DIVISIN- BIJNI, DIST- CHIRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP.BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D ROY, MS K DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SC, WILD LIFE PROTECTION BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 25-04-2025 Heard Mr. S.D. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wild Life. 2. This is an application u/s 482(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection Page No.# 2/3 with Complaint Case vide OR. No. PB/01 of 2025 u/s 9/39/49(B) of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended up to date and punishable u/s 51 of the said Act pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni, Chirang. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. It is a fact that a vehicle which was recovered/seized in connection with the case belongs to the present petitioner and that apart he is not involved in connection with the case. Mr. Roy further submitted that one of the co- accused Mr. Ansula Narzary took his vehicle on rent and thereafter he is not aware as to how the vehicle got theft. However, it was recovered by the police in an abundant condition near a bridge. Mr. Roy further submitted that in the Forwarding Report also it is seen that there is no mention about the involvement of the present petitioner and the entire recovery was made from the house of the co-accused Sadhin Narzary and there is no whisper in the Forwarding Report regarding the involvement of the present petitioner. However, he is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife submitted in this regard that through the materials in the Case Diary it is seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner who is directly involved in the case. As per the statement of the co-accused itself, the elephant task was brought by the present accused-petitioner along with one Ansula Narzary to his house wherefrom the police recovered the said elephant task. He further submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials Page No.# 3/3 against the present accused/petitioner and accordingly raised objection and said that it is not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused/petitioner. 6. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and considering the materials available in the Case Diary and the gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner at this stage and accordingly the same stands rejected. 7. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant