Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010115202025 2025:GAU-AS:8130 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1232/2025 MUKUT NATH SON OF SRI UTTAM NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAONAGARH, P.S. UDALGURI, DIST. UDALGURI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORA, MS J RAJKUMARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 18.06.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. Bora for the petitioner Mukut Nath who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Udalguri Police Station Case No. 55/2025 under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Page No.# 2/3 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. P. S. Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not involved in the incident. The petitioner is not responsible for the death of Priyojan Daimari. It is submitted that the incident occurred on 17.04.2025. Thereafter, the victim who was unable to get up on the following day was taken to the hospital. 4. It is further submitted that the FIR clearly reveals that the victim was examined in the hospital. His X-Ray was done and CT scan was taken and thereafter, the victim was released from hospital. The victim died of natural causes. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. The statements of eye witnesses clearly implicates the brutal manner in which the victim was attacked. Post-mortem report also reveals rupture of spleen which cannot be considered to be a cause of natural death. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 7. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongside the co-accused relentlessly assaulted Priyojan Daimari which finally resulted in his death. 8. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. 9. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail as it Page No.# 3/3 appears that investigation may be adversely affected if the petitioner is insulated by an order of anticipatory bail. 10. At this juncture, this Court is hesitant to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation cannot be a ground for bail. 12. Hence, petition stands rejected at this stage. 13. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant