Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010133572026 2026:GAU-AS:13728 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1469/2026 ANGARAG BAROOAH ALIAS JAAN BAROOAH ALIAS NAKUL BAROOAH ALIAS JYOTI BAROOAH RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 08 BORBARIUNDER DISPUR POLICE STATIONDISTRICT KAMRUP METROPOLITAN ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B M CHOUDHURY, MS. P TALUKDAR,MR. U CHOUDHURY,MR. S SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Sri Angarag Barooah @ Jaan Barooah @ Nakul Page No.# 2/2 Barooah @ Jyoti Barooah, has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Moranhat P.S. Case No.25/2026 under Sections 318(3)/319(2)/69/83/316(2)/336(3)/82(2)/351(3) of BNS, 2023. 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to interim protection granted by this court the petitioner had appeared before the I.O and his statement has been recorded and moreover, the allegations pertain to the year 2023 and the FIR has been lodged belatedly. 4. It is the further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and in the event charge-sheet is filed he will face the trial paragraph. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits with reference to the CD that the petitioner is involved in multiple instances of cheating and fraud and he has married or gone through the guise of marriage with as many as four women and furthermore, the activities of the petitioner was not known to the informant earlier and therefore, the FIR was lodged recently on 21.04.2026. 6. Having gone through the case diary, there appears to be a huge amount of incriminating materials against the petitioner for which custodial interrogation may be necessary. Furthermore, having regard to the multiplicity of allegations and the nature thereof, in the considered opinion of the Court the present is not a fit case for grant of the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected and the order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 26.06.2026 stands vacated. 8. Bail petition stands dismissed. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant