Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010097832026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1049/2026 SALEEM KHAN ALIAS SALIM KHAN S/O- LATE FIROZ KHAN R/O- KATAHBARI, 2 NO. MASJID PATH H. NO. 7, GORCHUK, P.S AND P/O- GORCHUK DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN-781035 PH- 8638048261 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S E AHMED, M AHMED,MR D J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 10.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. E. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Saleem Khan @ Salim Khan, apprehending Page No.# 2/3 arrest in connection with Paltanbazar P.S. Case No. 123/2026 (GR Case No. 1676/2026) registered Sections 140(2)/ 309(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegation as reflected in the FIR was that when the informant was returning home from Ulubari (Guwahati) on the day of alleged occurrence, one unknown car had stopped in front of him and he was forcefully taken up and threatened and an amount of Rs. 50,200/-was taken away from him and among them three individuals were present in the car. He could recognize one Asif Ali @ Mintu and the vehicle in question was not white coloured EON and its registration No. AS-O1-DM-3442 also. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said named accused Asif Ali had monetary transactions/ dealings with the informant and the money alleged to have been taken was probably in connection with such monetary transaction but the petitioner is unaware about the dealings between them. 5. The case dairy as called for has been received and perused. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amount of Rs. 50,200/- taken from the informant is yet to be recovered. 7. A perusal of the bail application, it appears that the petitioner has admitted that he was present in the vehicle along with the named co accused person who was subsequently arrested and granted bail. Page No.# 3/3 8. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court, the petitioner has failed to appear before the I.O. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had gone to the I.O. to meet him, but the I.O. was not present. 9. The order of the interim protection granted to the petitioner way back on 22.05.2025 and it appears that the petitioner thereafter made no attempt for the last four months to appear before the I.O. despite having the protection of the interim order which was extended from time to time. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner as well as the materials available in the case diary, the prayer for bail stands rejected. 11. The bail application is dismissed. 12. The interim protection order dated 22.05.2025 stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant