Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15430 (GAU)

SRI SUDIP SARKAR AND ORS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1561/2025 · 2025-08-11

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010145892025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1561/2025 SRI SUDIP SARKAR AND ORS S/O- GUNEN @ GUNIN SARKAR. VILL.- DOWAMAKHA, P.O.- LATIBARI, P.S.- TAMULPUR, DIST.- TAMULPUR, ASSAM. 2: REENA SARKAR W/O- SUDIP SARKAR. VILL.- DOWAMAKHA P.O.- LATIBARI P.S.- TAMULPUR DIST.- TAMULPUR ASSAM. 3: ANUJ KUMAR SARKAR S/O- SUDIP SARKAR. VILL.- DOWAMAKHA P.O.- LATIBARI P.S.- TAMULPUR DIST.- TAMULPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S C DAS, B SARKAR,D R BONGSHIARY,MR. C. SHIL,P BURAGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 12.08.2025 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. S. C. Das for the petitioners 1.Sudip Sarkar, 2. Reena Sarkar and 3. Anuj Kumar Sarkar who have filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Tamulpur PS Case No. 112/2025 under Section 103/3(5) of the BNS. 2. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.P.S. Lahkar is present for the State respondent. 3. Case Diary is received. 4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 5. The allegation against the petitioners is that they set ablaze the victim girl who had love relationship with her own cousin. 6. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection in granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioners. 7. I have also perused the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioners. Investigation is still under progress. This is the second application and the petitioners have not provided change of circumstances on which bail may be extended to the petitioners. 8. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners. 9. The pre-arrest bail application is rejected at this stage. Page No.# 3/3 10. Send back the Case Dairy. 11. The pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant