Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010066792026 2026:GAU-AS:10159 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/699/2026 CHANU SONARI SON OF PAHALMAN SONARI R/O VILL AND P.O. RAJABARI, P.S. BIHPURIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P BORAH, MR U GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.P.Borah for the petitioner namely, Chanu Sonari who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Panigaon PS Case No. 84/2025 under Section 316(2)/318(2)/336(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Page No.# 2/3 3. It is submitted that the allegation is primarily against the co-accused. Petitioner was involved only in manufacturing certain seals and rubber stamps without the knowledge that the seals would have been used for wrongful gain by the co-accused to prepare forged sale deeds to procure bank loan. It is further submitted that now the petitioner is aware that without an order from the Government, he cannot manufacture such seals and the petitioner being an Operator was only involved in manufacturing seals for the co-accused. The petitioner is not the prime accused. 2. Heard Mr. M.P.Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State who has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Dairy against the petitioner. The petitioner with mens rea has committed the offence of providing fake seals and rubber stamps to the co-accused for procuring bank loan which was used for providing fake sale deed. The statements of the witnesses implicate the petitioner. The I.O. has also forwarded written objection that there are incriminating materials in the Case Dairy against the petitioner. 4. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed, there are incriminating materials against the petitioner. The petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 01.04.2026. He has co-operated with the investigation and has appeared before the I.O. and his statement has been recorded. Investigation has progressed substantially. It appears that custodial interrogation may not be required as the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation. 5. It appears that pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner under certain conditions. Thereby, the interim order dated 01.04.2026 is made absolute under the following conditions: Page No.# 3/3 i) That the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. every fortnight till completion of the investigation, ii) That the petitioner shall refrain from manufacturing such rubber stamps and seals illegally, iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. 6. On breach of the above conditions, pre-arrest bail order shall stand cancelled. 7. In terms of the above observations, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant