Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010134412025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1419/2025 BIKASH PEGU AND ORS S/O- SHRI JIBA KANTA PEGU. R/O- RAKUT KEMERE , JONAI, DHEMAJI. DIST.-DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN-787060, P.S.- JONAI. 2: PHALGUNI PEGU S/O- SHRI GUBINDA PEGU. R/O- RAKUT KEMERE JONAI DHEMAJI. DIST.-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787060 P.S.- JONAI. 3: UTPAL PEGU S/O- SHRI BAPARAM PEGU. R/O- RAKUT KEMERE JONAI DHEMAJI. DIST.-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787060 P.S.- JONAI. 4: ANIL PEGU S/O- SHRI KADANG PEGU. R/O- RAKUT KEMERE JONAI DHEMAJI. DIST.-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787060 P.S.- JONAI. Page No.# 2/5 5: HIREN KUTUM S/O- SHRI BONSHI KUTUM. R/O- RAKUT KEMERE JONAI DHEMAJI. DIST.-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787060 P.S.- JONAI. 6: JHARNA TARAK PEGU W/O- SHRI BIKASH PEGU. R/O- RAKUT KEMERE JONAI DHEMAJI. DIST.-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787060 P.S.- JONAI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S. PEGU, MR P R SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by Page No.# 3/5 the petitioners Nos. (1) Bikash Pegu (2) Phalguni Pegu, (3) Utpal Pegu, (4) Anil Pegu (5) Hiren Kutum and (6) Jharna Tarak Pegu, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jonai P. S. Case No.37/2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/189(2)/109/117(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.05.2025, one Smt. Ajanta Kutum, had lodged an FIR, before the Officer-In-Charge of Jonai Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR, (including the present petitioners) have assaulted her husband Dibyajyoti Kutum on 02.05.2025 near Rakut Kemere Primary School, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during pendency of this anticipatory bail application, the Petitioner No.1, namely, Bikash Pegu, has already been arrested, hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail has become infructuous. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that one Dharmendra Lagasu had assaulted the said Bikash Pegu, which shows that the present petitioners do not have any role in the offence alleged in the FIR. 6. As regards other petitioners, it is submitted that they are falsely implicated in this case as a result of political rivalry in connection with Panchayat Elections, which were held in the month of May 2025. He also submits that in the meanwhile, 21 co-accused persons have already been released on anticipatory bail and the petitioners also stand on the same footing. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the investigation and, therefore, their custodial interrogation may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 4/5 submitted that the Petitioner No. 6, namely, Jharna Tarak Pegu, was earlier granted interim anticipatory bail. However, after the perusal of the case diary, this Court, by its order dated 12.06.2025, had vacated the interim anticipatory bail and her prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. 8. She submits that against all the 6 petitioners in this case, there are sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary. She also submits that the witnesses whose statements were recorded during the investigation have implicated the petitioners regarding their complicity in the offence alleged in this case. 9. She, therefore, submits that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and, therefore, prays for rejecting the prayer. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the case diary. 11. It appears from the records that on an earlier occasion also, the petitioners approached this Court by filing an anticipatory bail application, i.e., AB Case No. 1147/2025 which was dismissed in respect of the present petitioners by order dated 12.06.2025 after perusal of the case diary. 12. This time also on perusal of the case diary, it appears that the eye witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023 have implicated all the above named six petitioners regarding their complicity in the offence alleged in this case. 13. Considering their direct implications by the eye witnesses in the offence alleged this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioners. 14. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioners, is, therefore rejected. Page No.# 5/5 15. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant