Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010155432026 2026:GAU-AS:10519 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1716/2026 ABAJAN ALI S/O KAYMUDDIN VILL. NIZ BARALA, P.O. AMDAH, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MISS. S PARBIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.07.2026 Heard Mr R Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Azara PS Case No. 88/2026, under Sections 305(b)/305(c)/318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged by a transporter on 08.07.2026, stating, inter alia, that he was working at the Pepsi Company and that on 31.05.2026, he loaded 1050 numbers of cartons of Pepsi to be Page No.# 2/2 delivered to Sintha Services, Manipur, in a truck. He further stated that the said truck, due to technical fault halted near the Rani Railway Regiment for 8 (eight) days and that subsequently, another driver plying another truck contacted him and expressed his desire to carry the said goods to Manipur. However, the informant was informed by the Sintha Services, Manipur, that the items had not reached and as such, he lodged an ejahar for the loss thereof. The Police, on receipt of the FIR, investigated into the case and arrested three persons. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police has reached the house of the petitioner in search of him and that he is apprehending arrest although he is not involved in any manner with the said offence. 4. On the other hand, Mr D P Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the Police during investigation, has unearthed the names of the accused persons and as such during investigation, the Police had visited the house of the petitioner. 5. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the State, more so, in view of the fact that the informant had named both the drivers as well as 4 (four) other persons to be involved in the incident, but the name of the petitioner was not stated by the informant, and for the same, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with one local surety to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, under the following conditions:- i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 (seven) days from the date of the order; and ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witnesses. 7. The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant