JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. H.K. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Rinku Dutta, has prayed for granting him pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Titabar PS Case No. 29/2020 under Sections 379/511/323/506/34 of the IPC. 3. Case diary, as called for, is not received. However, a Status Report is received. 4. Mr. H.K. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is on interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 05.03.2020, and that the petitioner appeared before the I.O. 5. On perusal of the status report, it is noticed that in terms of the conditions of the interim pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 05.03.2020, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. The petitioner is co-operating in the investigation and there is no adverse report against the petitioner from the I.O. The status report reveals no justifiable reason for custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the interest of further investigation of the case. 6. Therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted in favour of the petitioner, vide order, dated 05.03.2020, is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. of the case as and when required for the purpose of investigation; (ii) that the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 7. With the above directions, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed off.