Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010039782026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/457/2026 SHRI UPENDRA MAHAPATRA S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA MAHAPATRA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 02 SHREEMOYEE RESIDENCY PS BHANGAGARH IN DISTRICT OF KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 781005 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMAH, MS. GARGI KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 09.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. A. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/3 Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Upendra Mahapatra, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 756/2025, registered under Section 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 as well as Dispur PS Case No. 81/2026 registered under the same Sections of law. 3. The first FIR lodged 30.09.2025 reveals that the petitioner and one another took money for some work from the informant and when the informant asked them to return the money, they did not. Subsequently, another FIR was lodged by the petitioner stating inter alia that the informant accompanied by other persons went to his residence and hurled insults and abuse to the petitioner and toe the bangles of his cancer patient wife. 4. Thereafter, another FIR was lodged by the informant stating inter alia that the petitioner had taken rupees five lakhs from him but when he is unable to execute the work, the informant asked for his money back but then the petitioner did not return. It is further alleged that when the informant went to his house on 26.12.2025, he was ousted from the house by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two FIRs on the same subject and no details regarding the cause for which the money was taken from the informant was stipulated and that it was only to harass the petitioner the FIRs were lodged. 6. Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned State counsel submits that the first FIR revealed only to the extent that money was taken from the informant and the same was not returned and the second FIR reveals a graver issue that Page No.# 3/3 when he went to the house of the petitioner to get his money back, he was ousted from his house and his mobile was snatched. As such, he submits that it is an admitted position that money was demanded by the petitioner and was taken from the informant and was not returned back. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the records, it seems that the informant had not written the cause of his giving money to the petitioner and also no details regarding the incident has been narrated, this Court finds it fit that a petitioner be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer of the Dispur police station under the following conditions that the petitioner: (a) will appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today; (b) He will appear before the IO as and when called for. (c) will not hamper or tamper with the evidence of the case. 8. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant