JUDGMENT : PRANJAL DAS, J. Heard Mr. A. Baruah learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Chutia learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent and Mr. B. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 2. This is an application, filed under Section 482 of the BNS S , 2023, for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioners in connection with Diphu P.S. Case No. 79/2025, registered under Sections 61 (2)/308(5)/351(3) of BNS , 2023, read with Section 67 (A) of the IT Act, 2000. 3. The prosecution case as has been narrated in the bail application is that one Rukasen Englang (Informant), lodged an FIR against the accused petitioners on 15.09.2025, alleging that in the month of August, 2023, his father came to Diphu (their hometown) from Guwahati and intimated the family members that he had been honey trapped by one Smti Mirdalin Teronpi at their flat in Guwahati. It was further intimated to the family members that the aforesaid Smti Mirdalin Teronpi had secretly videographed the whole incident in a mobile phone and his father is scared that if the video is published or made viral by the aforesaid Smti Mirdalin Teronpi, then the image of his father shall be tarnished, as he is the MLA of Diphu constituency. It was further stated in the complaint that due to the aforesaid apprehension, neither the informant nor his father immediately filed any complaint/FIR before the Police. However, later on, the accused petitioner No. 1, who is an ex-militant involved in many cases of extortion and unlawful activities got in touch with his father and intimated his father that the video is under their possession. It was alleged that the aforesaid accused petitioners demanded Rs. 30 Lakhs from his father and without any option left, his father paid the aforesaid money to the accused petitioner No. 1. It was further alleged that after a threat from aforesaid Smti Mirdalin Teronpi, his father also paid Rs. 28 Lakhs in three installments to her due to the fear that the video would be publicized by her. It was alleged that out of fear, his father had to pay a total amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs to the accused petitioners and the aforesaid Smti Mirdalin Teronpi. 28 Lakhs in three installments to her due to the fear that the video would be publicized by her. It was alleged that out of fear, his father had to pay a total amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs to the accused petitioners and the aforesaid Smti Mirdalin Teronpi. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR dated 15.09.2025, the Police registered the Diphu P.S. Case No. 79/2025, under Sections 61 (2)/308(5)/351(3) of BNS , 2023, read with Section 67 (A) of the IT Act, 2000. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners submits that the accused petitioners were not at all linked with the instant case. He submits that while the accused petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman of Karbi Anglong Chamber of Commerce, the accused petitioner No. 2 is a Village Head and both are respected citizens of Diphu town. He submits that though some amounts have been received by the accused petitioner No. 1, the same was paid through one Mrs. Moon Ingtipi, who is a cousin of the MLA, the father of the informant, against a loan received earlier. He further submits that the names of the accused petitioners were unnecessarily dragged into the instant case due to some enmity between the accused petitioners and the father of the informant. He submits that since a case has been registered, the accused petitioners are apprehending arrest and therefore, the instant application has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners further submits that the accused petitioner No. 1 is suffering from many diseases, including a renal failure with his creatinine level at 11mg/dL and he is constantly consulting the doctors for his renal transplant. He submits that his next medical checkup is scheduled on 30.09.2025. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the accused petitioners submits that the accused petitioners may be released on interim bail. 6. Per contra, Mr. G. Chutia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state respondent supporting the bail objection of the IO contends that the investigation is in progress and the one conducted so far has seriously implicated the petitioners and therefore they should not be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. It is also contended that there has been suppression of material facts with regard to the full antecedents of the petitioner No.1, especially with regard to his ongoing criminal cases. It is also contended that there has been suppression of material facts with regard to the full antecedents of the petitioner No.1, especially with regard to his ongoing criminal cases. It is submitted that granting of bail to the petitioners will risk hampering or tampering evidence and would adversely affect the investigation. It is submitted that bail application may be rejected. 7. Mr. B. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the accused petitioner No. 1 has not come before this court with complete facts and though he has stated in the bail petition about not having criminal antecedence, but the fact is that several criminal cases against him are a matter of record. It is submitted that otherwise also the accused petitioners are involved in the alleged offences and they are not deserving of the benefit of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the Informant opposing the bail seeks rejection of the same. 8. The case diary as called for has been received and placed before the court. 9. I have perused the relevant portions of the case diary, which reveals that though there is reasonably good progress in investigation, but the same is not yet completed. 10. Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has referred to a large number of decisions in support of this contention. 11. Mr. B. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the informant, has also referred to numerous judgments. For the purpose of adjudicating the anticipatory bail, it may not be necessary to load the order with referred portions of all the decisions and that, a reference to the some of the broad principles laid down therein, could suffice for the purpose of the present adjudication. 12. The contention of the IO is that the accused petitioners are involved in a conspiracy to extort large amounts of money from the victim who is stated to be a Legislative Assembly member from Karbi Anglong in the state of Assam. The extortion of large amount of money running into more than Rs. 50,00,000/- is with regard to alleged video of a illicit relationship of the informant’s father/MLA with one lady named Mirdalin Teronpi, who is also a co-accused in this case. The IO has also contended that the petitioner No.1 besides being an ex-militant, also has several criminal cases pending against him. 13. 50,00,000/- is with regard to alleged video of a illicit relationship of the informant’s father/MLA with one lady named Mirdalin Teronpi, who is also a co-accused in this case. The IO has also contended that the petitioner No.1 besides being an ex-militant, also has several criminal cases pending against him. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the informant drawing the attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1319, has submitted that in paragraph 5 of the bail petition, the petitioners have stated that they do not have criminal antecedents. However, it is an admitted position that several criminal cases, the particulars of which are in the record, were filed against the petitioners and some of which are still pending. 14. In this context, Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that while some cases were indeed filed against the petitioner No. 1, but he has been acquitted in several of them. 15. However, I find from the materials available before this court that in one of the cases, he has been declared an absconder by the concerned learned trial court. 16. The learned counsel for the informant, also refers to paragraphs 22 and 23 of a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1473 , where it has been held that while adjudicating bail petitions, the court has to be appraised of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and any other criminal cases pending against the petitioner. In this decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has rather suggested to the High Courts to incorporate a rule to this effect regarding bail petitions, as was found with regard to the Punjab & Haryana High Court. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has tried to contend and submit that there is a money transaction of the petitioner with one relative of the victim and the case was lodged vindictively against the petitioners. However, upon perusing the relevant materials, I find the said linkage to be somehow distant and not very convincing to the court to arrive at any definite opinion that the allegations are nothing but a vindictive act. However, upon perusing the relevant materials, I find the said linkage to be somehow distant and not very convincing to the court to arrive at any definite opinion that the allegations are nothing but a vindictive act. If the materials revealed by the investigation are accepted on their face value, these prima facie lend separate to the bail objection submitted by the IO. These also prima facie reveal that the present petitioners, especially petitioner No.1 herein was the mastermind in using the lady to honey trap the victim and extort large amounts of money from him. From the materials collected by the investigation, prima facie, I find elements of conspiracy, abetment and extortion on the part of the accused persons, including the present petitioners. In his statement, the informant has supported the allegations. The victim has stated in detail about the story and supported the allegations that he was trapped by that lady and extorted of large amount of money which he has paid in several installments running into lakhs each. Though, the lady is a co-accused, at this stage her statement is not completely irrelevant and in this regard, her statement lend support to the story projected by the investigation and the informant side. 18. Any illicit relationship of the victim might be a moral issue, unless it invites some criminal liability on its own accord under laws like Immoral Traffic Act or invites some sexual offences. However, if a person is honey trapped vis-a vis any such illicit relationship and then demanded of money under threat of blackmail – then the same if true, would be a criminal act, inviting at least, the offence of extortion. 19. It is also to be noted that anticipatory bail rest on a somewhat different footing from a regular bail to release a person in custody. An order of anticipatory bail puts fetters on the investigation as the IO can no longer custodially examine the accused. Further, such an order of anticipatory bail also will also mean that the accused has almost full access to his liberty, subject only to the bail conditions. Therefore, once a person secures an order of anticipatory bail, he avails all the benefits like that of the regular bail order. In the instant case, the investigation is not completed. The lady named Mirdalin Teronpi, who is co-accused, is already in custody, having been arrested on 25.09.2025. Therefore, once a person secures an order of anticipatory bail, he avails all the benefits like that of the regular bail order. In the instant case, the investigation is not completed. The lady named Mirdalin Teronpi, who is co-accused, is already in custody, having been arrested on 25.09.2025. As per the new provision of BNSS , 2023, the time frame for seeking custodial remand of any of the accused is still open. More importantly, the necessity of custodial examination for the purpose of the remaining investigation cannot be ruled out at all and it may not be prudent or justified at this stage to put any such restrictions on the investigation. Lastly, in view of the materials indicating the previous antecedents, granting of pre-arrest bail at this stage, apart from pre- empting custodial examination, could also be otherwise detrimental to the investigation. 20. Thus, in the given circumstances and in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion - I do not find sufficient merit in this bail application and the same accordingly, stands rejected at this stage. 21. The bail application accordingly stands disposed of. 22. Return the case diary.