Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010087902025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/961/2025 KARUNA KANTA KALITA S/O RAMPATI KALITA, VILL-KHUDRADADHI, P.O.- GERUAH, P.S.- HAJO, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: MUKUT SALOI S/O- CHANA RAM SALOI VILL- CHECHAMUKH P.O.- KULHATI P.S.- HAJO DIST.- KAMRUP 3: RAJANI SALOI S/O- CHANA RAM SALOI VILL- CHECHAMUKH P.O.- KULHATI P.S.- HAJO DIST.- KAMRUP (M VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S HAZARIKA, MS. N DAS,MR. S HAZARIKA,MR B KAUSHIK,K BHARALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Page No.# 2/3 ORDER 21.05.2025 1. Heard Ms. K. Bharali learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 379/2024, u/s 117(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. It is submitted by Ms. K. Bahrali , learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant lodged an FIR alleging interalia that there was an altercation between two groups of students in which the son of the informant who was studying in class IV was beaten by three students of class III of the same school for which the right hand of the informant’s son got injured. Upon informing about the incident to the Authorities of the School, they advised the complainant to do the treatment of his son and agreed to bear the expenses of the same. But, when he demanded to recover the same which is almost about Rs. 2,80,000/- the school authority denied to pay the same. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3 are the Principal, Owner/Secretary and School Managing Committee/Subject Teacher of the School respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they never made any commitment to bear the medical expenditure of the informant’s son. 4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection and I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. 5. The petitioners have appeared before the Investigating officer and they Page No.# 3/3 have co-operated with the investigation. The petitioners have not violated any bail conditions. 6. The petitioners are willing to co-operate with the remaining part of investigation. 7. Considering all aspects, interim order dated 29.04.2025 is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant