Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010132352026 2026:GAU-AS:10439 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1434/2026 NABAJYOTI HAZARIKA, S/O SRI GANESH HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF NEAR M.G. ROAD, CHRISTIAN PATTY CHARIALI, P.S. SIVASAGAR, DISTRICT SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 29.07.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 102/2026, under Sections 61(2)/316(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023, added Section 317 of the Page No.# 2/3 BNS and Section 23 of the Petroleum Act, 1934, this application under Section 482, BNSS is preferred by applicant, namely, Nabajyoti Hazarika, for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR, lodged by one Narsingh Suin on 01.06.2026. The essence of allegation in the aforesaid FIR is that one has taken a large quantity of diesel from the petrol pump of the informant without making payment, and that the value of the diesel was worth Rs. 1,79,507/-. 4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had been granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail, vide order dated 25.06.2026, and pursuant to the said order, he had also appeared before the I.O. and his statement had also been recorded, and that he has been cooperating with the investigating agency, and therefore, Mr. Ahmed submits that the interim order dated 25.06.2026, may be made absolute in the same terms and conditions. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that some materials have been collected by the I.O. during investigation. 6. However, to a pointed query of this Court, as to whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in the interest of investigation or not, Mr. Borthakur submits that since he has been extending cooperation with the investigation, custodial interrogation may not be required in view of the co- operation being extended by the applicant to the investigating agency. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on Page No.# 3/3 record. 8. It appears that the investigation has progressed significantly. In view of the progress achieved in the investigation, and also in view of the co-operation being extended by the applicant, his custodial interrogation, in the interest of investigation, seems to be not warranted here in this case. 9. Accordingly, the interim order dated 25.06.2026, is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions. 10. In terms of above, this application stands disposed of. 11. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant