Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010108232025 2025:GAU-AS:8518 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1726/2025 AJIT DHOPI ALIAS DHUBI AND ANR. SON OF LATE BIKRAM DUBI R/O VILL- DHOLAI PALOI TE, DHOLAI, P.S. DHOLAI DIST. CACHAR, STATE- ASSAM PIN-788114 2: UTTAM DHOPI @ DHUPI @ DUBI SON OF LATE BIKRAM DUBI R/O VILL- DHOLAI PALOI TE DHOLAI P.S. DHOLAI DIST. CACHAR STATE- ASSAM PIN-78811 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. J GHOSH,MS. S. CHANDA,MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS. U NANDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.06.2025 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. S.C.Biswas for the petitioners 1.Ajit Dhopi @ Dhupi@Dhobi and 2. Uttam Dhopi @Dhupi @Dubi who have filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as they behind bars since 06.04.2025 in connection with Dholai PS Case No. 54/2025 (GR Case No.617/2025) under Sections 329(4)/127(2)/117(2)/118(2)/3(5) of the BNS. 2. Mr. P.Borthakur, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor is present for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent. This is not an offence that was caused intentionally but at the most, it can be an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 4. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection against granting bail to the petitioners as there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary. 5. I have scrutinized the Case Diary. 6. The FIR unfolds that on 02.04.2025, at about 8.30 pm, the petitioner No.1 went to the house of the informant and compelled her husband to go with him. After a short while, the informant heard a commotion and went to the spot and at about 10.30 pm, she found him in a critical condition. The accused persons had beaten him up and thereafter fled away. The people who gathered at the Page No.# 3/3 spot called 108 ambulance. 7. I have also scrutinized the Case Dairy. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioners. 8. I have scrutinized the Post-mortem report which was not conclusive. The deceased has sustained several fatal injuries on his head and face including the mandible area. 9. I have considered the gravity of the offence. It appears that investigation may be adversely affected, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail at this stage. 10. Considering all aspects, there appears to be no justified ground to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners at this stage. 11. Hence, the bail application stands rejected at this stage. 12. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant