Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010039552026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/434/2026 SH VINAY KUMAR SON OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR FORCE NO- 235012184, SI/CDT/CRPF, R/O- VPO- BANYANI, TEHSIL, KALANAUR, ROHTAK, HARYANA- 124411 PH. NO. 8708841497 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S R GOGOI, MS B DUTTA,MR. C SARMAH,J SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 21-05-2026 Heard Mr. S R Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Sh. Vinay Kumar in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 347/2025 corresponding G.R. No. 1178/2025 under Sections 115(2)/3(5)/69/351(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail the accused/petitioner came from the place of posting and his statement is also recorded. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner is still willing to marry the victim as they had love relationship with each other. Petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the statement made by the victim u/s 183 BNSS. However, he submitted that he accused/petitioner has extended his cooperation in the investigation. 6. Hearing the submission made by learned counsels for both sides and also considering the materials in the Case Diary, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. Accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 7. Hence, the order of interim bail dated 05.03.2026 is hereby made absolute Page No.# 3/3 under the same terms and conditions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant