Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010236672025 2026:GAU-AS:55 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2582/2025 SHRI RAMESH HATIMURIA SON OF LATE BIRESHWAR HATIMURIA, R/O VILLAGE MACHKHOWA, P.O. AND P.S. SIMEN CHAPORI, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN-787061 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DAS, MRS P P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 05.01.2026 Heard Mr.P.K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the petitioner, namely, Ramesh Hatimuria, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Page No.# 2/3 Silapathar P.S. Case No. 138/2025 under Section 309(6) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 27 of Arms Act. 3. The allegation in the FIR dated 30.06.2025 lodged by informant Aftab Alom is that on the said day in the midnight, the house and shop of the informant was criminally trespassed into by several unknown persons and by threatening him at gunpoint and causing assault upon him, valuables, including cash of Rs.2,00,000/- were stolen. 4. For the reasons stated in the order dated 01.11.2025, the petitioner was granted interim bail with conditions. 5. In the meantime, the scanned case records has been received. 6. It is submitted by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor that though one Charge sheet has been submitted in which the present petitioner has not been sent up for trial but further investigation into the alleged offences are on, including the investigation into the role of the present petitioner who has been mentioned in the forwarding report as the main mastermind in the alleged offence of robbery. 7. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that statement of the co-accused does indicate the role of the present petitioner. 8. In this context, petitioner’s counsel submits that statement of the co- accused should not be admissible . 9. I have also seen the statements of the two witnesses including one of the victim which was recorded by the police during investigation. 10. It is submitted by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor that considering the alleged offences, perhaps custodial examination of the petitioner would be necessary as part of effective further investigation. 11. Upon considering the materials, I find force in the said submission and Page No.# 3/3 perhaps at this stage, it may not be an appropriate case for granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected, at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant