AB 2610/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI This is an application made under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Sanjib Kr. Boroo, in connection with BI(EO) Police Stat ion Case No. 31/2010, under Section 379 IPC read with Sections 40/41 of AFR Vol- VII of 1891 and 2/25 and 49(I) of AFR (Amendment) Act, 1985. Perused the above application and materials on record. Perused also the relevant case diary. Heard Mr. RP Sarmah, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petition er, and Mr. BS Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. At the instance of the petitioner, the case diary has been perused, once again. Its perusal reveals sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. T he petitioner has produced copies of various documents on record to show that th e goods, in question, were covered by requisite permit. While considering this a spect of the case, it needs to be pointed out that the petitioner is an employee of the Railways, the goods were found at the platform of Guwahati Railway Stati on, the goods having been booked at Dimapur. The goods could not have been dispa tched, admittedly, without the dispatch of the goods having been cleared by the petitioner. The question, therefore, remains as to what documents were considere d and what were the documents whereunder the goods, in question, were dispatched . The documents, which the petitioner has produced, are not the documents from t he Railways and, on pointed query made by this Court it is conceded, on behalf o f the petitioner, that the petitioner has produced the copies of the documents, in the present case, having obtained the same from various other sources. The pe titioner has, thus, failed to show that the goods were covered by appropriate do cuments at the time, when the same were dispatched. Situated thus, it is clear that there are sufficient incriminating materials war ranting custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Considering the nature of incriminating materials available in the case diary ag ainst the petitioner, this Court is of the view that, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit o f pre-arrest bail. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the prayer for pre-arrest b ail, made by the petitioner, is hereby rejected. With the above observations and directions, this petition shall stand disposed o f.