Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010078112026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/860/2026 KHANINDRA NATH S/O SRI TARUN NATH, VILL. BAGURIBARI B BLOCK, P.S. BORBORI, P.O. NIKASI, DIST. BAKSA BTAD, ASSAM, PIN 781372 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N ALAM R K, MR. A RAHMAN,N HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 12.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. N. Alam R K for the petitioner Khanindra Nath who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Rangia Police Station Case No. 46/2026 under Sections Page No.# 2/3 318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he proposed to sell some vehicles which according to him, he had received as gift from his nephew, Rupam Saikia. The informant agreed to sell the vehicle along with Rupam Saikia. 4. The informant then helped in selling the vehicle and paid money to the petitioner, Khanindra Nath in his bank account. Thereafter, the petitioner proposed to sell 13 more vehicles with the help of the informant and the informant helped the petitioner in selling all the vehicles and also paid for the same. A total amount of Rs. 56 lacs was paid by the informant to the petitioner and his nephew in the bank accounts in cash. 5. These vehicles were however, not registered and transferred to the owners who have purchased the vehicles. In this manner, the entire sale proceeds were misappropriated by the petitioner and his nephew. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection against the bail application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant himself was involved in the offence which he has alleged against the petitioner. A false case has been brought up against the petitioner. 8. I have scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. Investigation is still under progress. 9. At this juncture, there appears to be no justified ground to extend the Page No.# 3/3 privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. Petition stands rejected at this stage of investigation. 11. In terms of the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of. 12. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant