Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010121332025 2025:GAU-AS:11310 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1276/2025 SHRI KHYAM NEWAR @ BITU NEWAR. S/O- SRI CHANDRA PRASAD NEWAR. R/O- VILL.- FAKIDIYA. P.O.- EKRABARI. P.S.- ROWTA, DIST.- UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D GOSWAMI, MS K DAS,MR. J M GOGOI,MR. P K SAHARIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 22-08-2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. P. K. Saharia, for the petitioner, Shri Khyam Newar @ Bitu Newar, who has filed this application under Section 482 of Page No.# 2/3 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Rowta Police Station Case No. 30/2025 registered under Sections 126(2)/117(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, added Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 13.03.2025, Laru Gopal Rai, mistakenly entered into the betel nut orchard of Girija Newar. Mistaking him to be a thief, the petitioner along with the other accused named in the FIR assaulted him severely, causing grave injuries on the person. The victim Laru Gopal Rai was then forwarded for treatment. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the theft case, an FIR was lodged by the accused No. 1 i.e. Girija Newar which was registered as Rowta Police Case No. 29/2025 under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is further contended that the victim was arrested and while, he was in custody of the police, the victim sustained injuries on his head. 5. On an RTI application, the injuries report was obtained on behalf of the petitioner, which clearly reveals a lacerated wound on the scalp of the victim after a fall while he was still in custody of the police. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner and earlier, his bail was rejected. It is further submitted that no new change of circumstances has been projected by the petitioner to be granted bail. 7. I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records. 8. A prima facie case against him was found and charge sheet has been laid Page No.# 3/3 against the petitioner under Section 103 of BNSS. 9. The petitioner may be a Government servant, but I have also considered the gravity of offence. There are indeed incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. I have also considered the conduct of the petitioner. It appears that trial may be adversely affected if the petitioner is insulated by an order of anticipatory bail. 10. It will be apt to reiterate that in serious cases like case of murder, armed robbery, when there are materials against an accused, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 11. In view of my foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail at least at this juncture. 12. Petition stands rejected at this stage. 13. In terms of the above observation, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant