Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010122352025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1309/2025 KAMAL DAS AND ANR S/O- LATE JAYNATH DAS. R/O- VILL.- DAKHIN DONGARGAON, P.O.- KALCHENI, P.S.- TAMULPUR, DIST.- TAMULPUR, ASSAM. PIN-781368. 2: SRI SUKUMAR DAS S/O- SRI KAMAL DAS. R/O- VILL.- DAKHIN DONGARGAON P.O.- KALCHENI P.S.- TAMULPUR DIST.- TAMULPUR ASSAM. PIN-781368. 3: SRI BIPUSH DAS @ BIPLUP DAS S/O- SRI KAMAL DAS. R/O- VILL.- DAKHIN DONGARGAON P.O.- KALCHENI P.S.- TAMULPUR DIST.- TAMULPUR ASSAM. PIN-781368 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S NATH, MR S DAS Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Kamal Das, 2. Sukumar Das and 3. Biplush Das @ Biplup Das who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 86/2025 under Sections 131/132/96/3(5) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 31.03.2025, the father of the victim-girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Nagrijuli Police Out Post, inter alia, alleging that his daughter was detained by the accused No. 1 on 26.03.2025 inside his shop room and was beaten up. Later on, she was released only on the assurance of paying Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) to the accused. It is alleged that on 31.03.2025, a public meeting was held over the same issue and the petitioners herein on the said date, brought the daughter of the informant by force to that meeting and beat her up in the said public meeting. When police arrived at the spot, the petitioners also attacked the police and tried to snatch away the arms. 4. It appears that this is for the second time the petitioners have approach this Court praying for bail. Their earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court on 06.05.2025 in AB No. 896/2025. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 86/2025 and has submitted that there Page No.# 3/3 are sufficient incriminating materials against all the accused persons. He submits that even the police personnel’s were assaulted when they came to rescue the victim-girl on the said meeting. He also submits that the victim girl was also assaulted and therefore, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 7. It appears that on earlier occasion the prayer for the anticipatory bail of the petitioners were rejected after perusal of the case diary and it was observed that sufficient incriminating materials were found against the petitioners in the case diary. 8. Today also, when the case diary of the Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 86/2025 is perused, it appears that the present petitioners has been specifically named by the victims as in this case there was an assault on the police personnel and the evidence against the petitioners on record is there. 9. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that this is not a fit case where any favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS may be passed against the present petitioners. 10. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant