Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010062732025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/677/2025 LAKHYA JYOTI NATH S/O- SRI DIPAK NATH , R/O- VILL- KOANIBORA CHUBURI, BESSERIA, DA -GOAN PUKHURIA, PO BESSERIA, PS TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D C K HAZARIKA, MR N C K HAZARIKA,MS J BEZBARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 03.04.2025 Heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the applicant, namely, Lakhya Jyoti Nath, who has been apprehending arrest in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No.27/2025 under Section 308(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for grant of pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 2/3 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Khirod Bhumij on 08.01.2025. The allegation against the present applicant is that on 07.01.2025, at about 4:00 p.m., he along with one Rajib Kalita, Nayan Jyoti Borah and Kiriti Keot visited Kathalguri Tea Estate, while the local people therein were conducting a religious programme and cock fight and that the applicant herein along with other persons asked them to stop the programme and demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- from Khirod Bhumij besides blackmailing and threatening him. 4. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the applicant submits that on two grounds this application is preferred by the applicant – one is nothing has been recovered and seized from the possession of the present applicant to substantiate the demand of money and the second one is the father of the applicant is undergoing treatment for ailment of heart and the applicant is busy with the same. However, to a pointed query of this Court as to whether any medical document is enclosed with this application to substantiate the said plea, Mr. Hazarika submits that no such document is enclosed with this application, but statement to that effect has been made in the application which is supported by an affidavit. Mr. Hazarika also submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow this application. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that investigation is going on and the applicant has been absconding and if the privilege of pre-arrest bail is granted to the applicant at this stage, then there is every possibility of hampering the investigation and tampering the witnesses. Mr. Sarma further submits that at the time of consideration of bail, only the prima facie case is to be looked into and prima facie materials are there against the present applicant and the same has already been observed by this Court after perusing the case diary in the order dated 28.01.2025, and therefore, Mr. Sarma has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary produced before this Court by Mr. Sarma today. Page No.# 3/3 7. It is not in dispute that this is the 2nd pre-arrest bail application preferred by the applicant and the first one being AB No.136/2025 was dismissed by this Court, after perusing the case diary, vide order dated 28.01.2025. Perusal of the case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected some materials in support of the allegation made in the FIR and the same indicates prima facie case against the applicant and the role played by him. From the materials collected in the case diary, it also appears that the applicant and the co-accused have demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the informant besides blackmailing and threatening him. 8. Though, Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the applicant submits that nothing has been recovered and seized from the possession of the applicant, yet, it appears from the case diary that the applicant has been absconding since the time of commission of the offence and as such, the question of recovery and seizure does not arise. Further, no medical document is enclosed with this application to substantiate the claim that the applicant is busy in treatment of his father. Mere statement supported by an affidavit in the petition, to the considered opinion of this Court is not sufficient to establish the plea so taken by the applicant. Investigation is still going on and the co-accused are also absconding and the I.O. in the case diary categorically stated that there is possibility of influencing the witnesses if the privilege of pre-arrest bail is extended to the applicant. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the privilege of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The applicant is directed to surrender before the I.O. within a period of one week from today. 10. Case diary be returned. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE