Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010058802026 2026:GAU-AS:6596 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/644/2026 SHIRAJUL KHAN SON OF RUMEZ KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILL- UTTAR BHURIKHAMAR, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 13.05.2026 Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, in connection with Page No.# 2/2 Changsari P.S. Case No. 238/2025, under Sections 303(2)/317(2) of the BNS. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is no way involved in the alleged offence and he is only the registered owner of the truck, wherein the articles were recovered by police during investigation. However, he has submitted that the petitioner had a vehicle rent agreement with one Minowar Hossain, who took the vehicle on rent and hence, he is not aware of any offence committed by the driver or any other person. However, after obtaining the order of interim protection, he has appeared before the I.O. and cooperated with the investigation of this case. 5. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted in this regard that the petitioner has appeared before the I.O. and cooperated with the investigation of this case and he has been recorded as owner of the seized truck. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides and the materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary and hence, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 7. Thus, the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 24.03.2026, is hereby made absolute with the same terms and conditions. 8. With the above observation, the present AB stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant