Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010194452025 2026:GAU-AS:2500 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2115/2025 NITUL RAJBONGSHI S/O- BIREN RAJBONGSHI. R/O- VILL.- KENDUKUCHI, P.O.- KENDUKUCHI, P.O.- KENDUKUCHI, P.S.- NALBARI, DIST.- NALBARI, PIN - 781341. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K DEY, MR V K BAROOAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 19-02-2026 Heard Mr. K. K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Ratul Rajbongshi who is apprehending arrest in connection with Barama P.S. Case No. 65/2025 under Section 326(g)/3(5) BNS, (G.R. Case No. 597/2025). 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Dey, learned counsel that the present petitioner is innocent and he has committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. After obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, he appeared before the IO and cooperated in the investigation of the case. More so, no one could identify the petitioner though allegation has been brought against him except white colour Bolero vehicle, there is no other statements made in the FIR for identification of the present petitioner. 5. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in the further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre- arrest bail. 6. Mr. Das, learned APP submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner and it is not a case that only the car was identified by some persons, but the present petitioner along with some others were duly identified by some of the employees and witnesses Page No.# 3/4 of this case, who also gave their statements accordingly. 7. Mr. Das, learned APP further submitted that the petitioner after obtaining the order of interim pre arrest bail, he is now threatening the witnesses not to depose against him and to change the statement which they have earlier stated before the I.O. otherwise will face dire consequences. Some CDR analysis is also available in the case diary wherefrom also it is seen that the petitioner made some phone calls and threatened the witnesses to change their statements and not to say anything against him. He further submitted that the I.O. also filed his bail objection stating that the petitioner is still trying to threaten the witnesses which will hamper and temper the investigation of the case, if his pre-arrest bail is considered. 8. Mr. Das accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage. 9. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary and the annexures filed along with the petition. 10. It is an admitted position that after obtaining the order of interim pre- arrest bail, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and his statement was also recorded. However, from the materials available in the case diary, it is seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary against the present petitioner and he is also previously involved in such type of offence and earlier also he threatened the present informant. That apart, it is also seen that after obtaining the order of interim pre arrest bail, now he is threatening the witnesses, which violates his bail conditions. Thus, it is seen that the accused petitioner has not abide by the terms and conditions of the interim pre-arrest Page No.# 4/4 bail and he is not cooperating with the I.O. and that apart he is threatening the witnesses, which will hamper with the investigation of the case. 11. In view of this I find that the petitioner is not entitled with the privilege of pre arrest bail and hence, the earlier interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 02.09.2025 is hereby stands vacated/recalled. 12. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, namely, Ratul Rajbongshi in connection with Barama P.S. Case No. 65/2025 under Section 326(g)/3(5) BNS, (G.R. Case No. 597/2025) stands rejected. 13. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant