Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010171202026 2026:GAU-AS:11615 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1905/2026 KAPIL ROY AND ANR S/O- CHAKRADHAR ROY,R/O - VILLAGE- SRIPURDEOUR, P.S- MUSHALPUR,DISTRICT- BAKSA, ASSAM 2: MANASH PRATIM DAS S/O-JITEN DAS R/O-TIHU TOWN WARD NO-03 P.S- TIHU DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P DAS, MS N BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 17.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. P.Das, learned counsel for the accused applicants. Also heard Mr. K.Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Page No.# 2/4 respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicants namely, 1. Kapil Roy and 2. Manash Pratim Das in connection with Tihu P.S. Case No.26/2026 under Sections 309(4)/ 115/126/111 of BNS,2023. 3. An FIR was lodged by one informant namely, Md. Billal Ali before the Officer-In-Charge of Tihu Police Station alleging that on 15.06.2026, at about 10:30 am, the members of the MD Associates, namely, 1. Kapil Roy, 2. Dipu Das, 3. Tapan Roy and other unknown persons obstructed his way and also took away his motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-15-U-0753 which was registered in his wife's name due to the default of payment of EMI. It is also alleged that on 16.07.2026 he deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- on Phone pay and another amount of Rs.5000/- in cash to the accused person, namely Kapil Roy but the accused person did not return the motorcycle to him and when he went to take back the motorcycle, he was assaulted and they also snatched Rs.30,000/- from him. In view of the aforesaid FIR, police registered the Tihu P.S. Case No.26/2026 under the aforementioned sections. 4. The learned counsel for the accused applicants submits the accused applicant No.1 has been named in the FIR and he is a person working with MD Associates and he has only taken the amount which was due from the informant and the amount had already been transferred to the financer. He submits that there was no snatching of Rs.30,000/- as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that since there was a default of payment of EMI in terms of the policy of the financial company, amount has been duly deposited to the financial company and the Motorcycle was also handed over the financial company. He submits Page No.# 3/4 that it is the financial company who can return the Motorcycle to the informant. He submits that accused applicant No.2 is not named in the FIR. He submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, the accused applicants should be granted pre-arrest bail. 5. This Court has heard the submissions of respective parties including the State and is of the considered view that pre-arrest bail should be granted to the accused applicants at this stage. 6. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused- applicants named above in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: i) The accused-applicants shall appear before the investigating officer within a period of 10 days of passing of this order; ii) The accused-applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available as and when called for by the investigating officer; and iii) The accused-applicants shall not try to tamper or hamper with the investigation in any manner, whatsoever. 7. In terms of the above directions, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant