Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010096992025 2025:GAU-AS:7404 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1040/2025 PHANI PATOWARI @ PHANINDRA PATOWARI@ PHANINDRA KALITA S/O LT.GHANA KANTA PATOWARI R/O ADINGIRI SANKAR NAGAR, P.O.AND P.S. MALIGAON DIST.KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P BORAH, MR. K GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 04.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. P. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Phani Patowari @Phanindra Patowari @Phanindra Kalita, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Garchuk P.S. Case No. 103/2025, under Sections 117(2/109 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.04.2025, one Tapan Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Garchuk police station, inter alia, alleging that when on 02.04.2025, the brother-in- law of the informant, Sri Tapan Das went to a saloon for shaving, he had an altercation with the present petitioner on some small issue and soon after the shaving when he came out, the petitioner assaulted him with a hammer on his head, due to which he sustained serious injury and is presently admitted in Dispur GNRC Hospital. 4. Ms. P. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had no intention to cause injury or to kill the injured person. 5. She submits that the incident occurred due to some altercation over a small issue and out of the spur of the moment due to provocation when the petitioner was also assaulted by the victim, he replied back by assaulting him. 6. She submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 7. On the other hand, Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Garchuk P.S. Case No. Page No.# 3/3 103/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. She submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary and the victim sustained grievous injury on his head and is presently also admitted in the Hospital. She submits that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail may be granted. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record, including the Case Diary which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. On perusal of the medical report available in the Case Diary, it appears that the injured sustained grievous injuries on his head and is presently admitted in the Hospital. It also appears that the witnesses, whose statement is recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023 during investigation have categorically implicated the petitioner. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case, where relief of anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 12. Send back the Case Diary. 13. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant