Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010077492025 2025:GAU-AS:5110 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/857/2025 DIPEN DAS S/O PADMALAL DAS R/O VILL-RANGSALI SONARI P.S. BEHALI, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : TUN RAJKHOWA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 28.04.2025 Heard Ms. T. Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner i.e. Dipen Das, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Behali P.S. Case No.15/2025 registered under Section 118(2)/115(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 04.02.2025 an F.I.R. was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Behali Police Station alleging inter-alia that on 04.02.2025 at about 7.30 am, the petitioner called the informant’s brother on the road and while her brother was going, her mother also followed. But before her mother could reach out to them, the petitioner hit her brother with an axe and as her brother moved aside, the axe hit her mother’s face and also on her back and hands, whereby grievous injuries were caused and her mother fell down on the ground. It is further alleged that thereafter the co-accused with a Khukri in his hand asked her brother why he is fighting with the petitioner and stabbed him on his head causing grievous injuries. It is further alleged that due to the aforesaid assault her mother had 5 stitches in her face and her brother had blood clot in his head. Accordingly, a case was registered. 4. Ms. T. Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is totally innocent and is no way connected with the offences alleged in the F.I.R. and that the informant and the petitioner’s family have a dispute regarding the boundary of the land since long and on 04.02.2025, there was fight between the two Page No.# 3/4 families for which the family members of the informant sustained injuries. Ms. Rajkhowa, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. 5. Per contra Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that the injury report indicates lacerated wounds over the right angle on the mouth of the mother of the informant. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both the parties and also perused the material available on record. 7. It appears that the allegation in the F.I.R. is that while the petitioner was aiming to hit the brother of the informant, he accidently hit the mother. It further appears that it is the other co-accused against whom the allegation is that, he has hit the brother in the vital part of the body i.e. head. It further appears that the case diary indicates that the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation as available in the case diary reveals that the petitioner had hit the mother on the mouth. It also appears that the investigation has substantially progressed. 8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be justified in the facts and circumstances of the Page No.# 4/4 case. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with the above noted case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:- i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days, failing which on and from the 11th day, the pre-arrest bail order shall have no force; ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. iii) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission. 9. Resultantly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant