Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010127982026 2026:GAU-AS:9452 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1417/2026 MANASH MANAB GOGOI ALIAS MANASH GOGOI ALIAS TOMTOM, SON OF LATE BHUBON GOGOI ALIAS PUNARAM GOGOI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SUNPORA GOHAIN GAON, POLICE STATION - SIVASAGAR, DISTRICT SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P HAZARIKA, MR. A. GAYAN,MR. P K MUNIR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 02.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. P. K. Munir for the petitioner Manash Manab Gogoi @Manash Gogoi @Tomtom 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 Nazira Police Station Case No. Page No.# 2/3 26/2026 under Sections 61(2)121(2)/109/308(4)/62/324(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Sections 25(1-A)/27 of Arms Act, 1959. 2. Heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in 2 different cases. While investigation was going on in connection with Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 93/2026, it could be unearthed that the petitioner was involved in connection with the present case i.e., Nazira P.S. Case No. 26/2026. 4. The allegation is basically against the petitioner who has been involved in offences of kidnapping, extortion and demanding ransom in the name of a banned organization. As the petitioner has been booked under this case, he has prayed for pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. The petitioner is the mastermind of the entire operation. 6. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. 7. I have considered the earlier antecedents of criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner is thus not entitled to privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Petition stands rejected at this stage. 9. In terms of the above observation, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 10. Send back the Case Diary. Page No.# 3/3 JUDGE Comparing Assistant