Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010068072025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/757/2025 SRI KAJAL SAIKIA @ JUMAN SAIKIA S/O-SRI BHUSHAN SAIKIA @ BHUBAN,R/O-VILL-DIHINGIA KALITA GAON,TEZPUR,PIN-784501,P.O-B.P TINIALI,P.S-TEZPUR,DIST- SONITPUR,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M P CHOUDHURY, MR. B D DEKA,N CHAUDHURY,MR. M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. M.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, has been filed by Page No.# 2/3 the petitioner, namely, Sri Kajal Saikia@Juman Saikia, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tezpur Police Station Case No.96/2025 under Section 61(2) (a)/103 (1)/ 3 (5) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusations in this case is that 08.02.2025, one Sri Jayanta Tamuli, had lodged a FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Bebejia Police Out-Post, inter alia, alleging that on 06.02.2025 he was informed regarding finding of the dead body of his son Trilochan Tamuli, near the tri junction of Kanai Bora Chuburi near National Highway no.15. It is further stated in the FIR that when he went to the place of occurrence the informant noticed injury marks on the elbow of the left hand of the deceased as well as drag marks on the newly constructed sand/gravel road of the National Highway. It is also alleged in the FIR that before the date of the alleged offence the deceased son of the informant was working in the residence of the present petitioner and he came to know from people of the locality that there was an altercation between the deceased son of the informant and the present petitioner and his father which led to the death of the son of the first informant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offence, as alleged in this case. He submits that due to a dispute over payment of some money, in pursuance to a memorandum of agreement, which was entered between the father of the present petitioner and one Pranjal Saikia, the said Pranjal Saikia has spread information amongst the people of the locality that the petitioner and his father has assaulted the deceased, which is not true. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that veracity of the petitioner can be ascertained in the CCTV footage of the CCTV installed Page No.# 3/3 in the place of occurrence, if examined. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Ms. S. H. Borah has produced the Case Diary of Tezpur Police Station Case No.96/2025 and has submitted that CCTV footage is not available in the Case Diary, however, there are sufficient incriminating materials implicating the present petitioner in the alleged offence. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the Case Diary of Tezpur Police Station Case No.96/2025. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner regarding his complicity in the offence, as alleged in the FIR. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that, this case is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage for the reasons stated hereinabove, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected at this stage. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant