THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA, MR. N M DAS,MR. J HATIMURIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Date : 29.07.2025 ORDER

#1. Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

#2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Pulak Jyoti Boruah, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No. 52/2025 under Sections 61(2)/303(2) of BNS read with Section 23 of Petroleum Act as well as Sections 15(2)/15(4) of Petroleum and Page No.# 2/4 Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 as well as Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

#3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 16.01.2025, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-charge of Itachali Police Outpost under Nagaon Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on that day the control room of Oil India Limited at Numaligach that there was a pressure drop in the product pipeline from 0148 Hrs. around Purani Gudam Area. Accordingly, the Additional SP(C) was informed and a team was mobilized. During inspection, it was found that unauthorized at oil pipelines site, Bherbeheri Gaon near Maisa Mritunjay Mandir was there.

#4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offence alleged under Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011. He submits that the car of the petitioner was seized with 20 Liter plastic gallon. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the vehicle of the present petitioner has been seized in connection with this case, he is apprehending his arrest in said case. He submits that even if some presumption is drawn about complicity of the petitioner in the aforesaid case, at the best, he may be charged only under Section 23 of the Petroleum Act. He further submits that even the offence under Section 303(2) of the BNS is bailable. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation.

#5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner and has produced the case diary of Nagaon P.S. Case No. 52/2025 and has submitted that in the aforesaid case, four accused persons have been arrested against whom there are materials to indicate that they have fitted unauthorized fittings in the oil pipeline.

#6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that 15(2) of Petroleum Page No.# 3/4 and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act entails punishment upto 10(ten) years whereas offence under Section 15(4) of the said Act entails punishment upto life imprisonment or death and he submits that considering the fact that the investigation is going on, the petitioner may not be granted interim bail. He, however, fairly submits that at present stage, there are materials in the case diary to indicate that the petitioner was found present in the spot and the co-accused have implicated him even before the day on which he was spotted, he took oil from the tankers on two occasions.

#7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

#8. Though, serious offences under Sections 15(2)/15(4) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 is involved in this case, however, the materials in the case diary which is available at this stage indicates involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid offence. Though, it gives an indication regarding his involvement in other offences involved in this case which prescribes lesser punishment than that of which has been provided under Sections 15(2)/15(4) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011.

#9. Under aforementioned circumstances, this Court is considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation.

#10. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Nagaon P.S. Case No. 52/2025 within a period of 7 days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If he does so, within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest, in connection with the above noted case, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Page No.# 4/4 Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation;

#11. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of.

#12. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant