Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040010682026 2026:GAU-AP:741 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/78/2026 Rituranjan Phukan Son of Shri Sujen Phukan, resident of Village Rahmoria, PO and PS Rohmoria, Dibrugarh District, Assam. 792110 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Deka, Nannu Yubi,T Char,Sange Drema Philley,Chorpok Modi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date :06-08-2026 Heard Mr. U. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional PP for the State of AP. 2. Invoking section 428 BNSS, the petitioner namely, Ritu Ranjan Phukhan, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Shantipur PS Page No.# 2/3 Case No. 03/2026 under section 305/3(5) of BNS. 3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 30.03.2026 lodged on behalf of Pace Digitek Ltd. Company. The allegations is that a theft of batteries and power cables worth more than Rs. 8 lakhs was detected on 12.02.2026. It is further stated in the FIR that for several months, there have been repeated thefts at mobile tower sites in Lower Dibang Valley, Tirap, Anjaw. It is stated that the culprits pretended to be BTS installation team and entered the site and stole materials. The suspects mentioned in the FIR are the present petitioner, Mr. Hirak Jyoti Kunch and Mr. Rajani Kunch. 4. Mr. U. Deka, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is an employee of the company and he denies involvement in any such activities of theft. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional PP submits that the scanned case diary has been received and that despite issuance of notice, the petitioner has been found to be absconding and that, in the meantime, NBWA has been issued by the learned Court below. 6. It is revealed from the case diary that during investigation 3 (three) persons including one FIR named accused were arrested and from them large quantity of materials like cable wire, copper wire, antenna box, etc were seized. It is also revealed from the case diary that several other persons are suspected to be involved in the case and investigation is going on to unravel the racket. 7. On giving my consideration to the entire matter, I find force in the Page No.# 3/3 prosecution contention that grant of pre-arrest bail at this stage would not be in the best interest of the investigation. 8. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected at this stage. 9. Anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant