Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010185242025 2025:GAU-AS:11746 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2691/2025 AJAY RAJA ALIAS ROMIYAN KARUNANITI AND ANR SON OF LATE ROMIYAN SUBBIAH PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 41, KHARGHULI HILLSIDE, GUWAHATI- 781004, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: MR KRISHNARAJ SON OF MR AJAY RAJA @ ROMIYAN KARUNANITHI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 41 KHARGHULI HILLSIDE GUWAHATI- 781004 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY, MR. C CHAKRAVARTY,MR. R HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A CHAMUAH (INFORMANT) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 01.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. J Roy, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. A Chamuah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Chandmari P.S Case No. 206/2025 registered under Section 118(2)/296/3(5) of B.N.S, 2023. 3. The F.I.R dated 11.08.2025, lodged by the victim reveals that on the previous day i.e. on 10.08.2025 at around 11:00 PM, when the victim went to buy some liquor from the wine shop, the petitioner No. 2 told him that they had closed the shop after which the victim went back. It is also stated by the victim that after some time, when he again went out to buy some medicines for his mother, the owner along with some local goons attacked him and beat him up grievously for which he suffered grievous injuries and was admitted to the hospital. 4. Mr. J Roy, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim asked for liquor from the said wine shop after it was closed and then the victim abused the persons and thereafter, subsequently he brought some goons along with him and attacked the petitioners. And as such, he states that the story narrated in the F.I.R is a Page No.# 3/5 concocted one. 5. Mr. A Chamuah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that had filed a written objection to the bail application and has stated that the informant was beaten up severely by the petitioner and that his injuries were grievous in nature which was further substantiated by annexing the said photographs in the petition by the learned counsel. 6. Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam had shown the injury report of the informant where it is opined by the Doctor that the injuries were grievous. He has also pleased the statement of the witnesses namely Jun Sarma who had stated that while they were in and around the place of occurrence, the petitioners came and without telling anything attacked him and others and also attacked the informant on the head, who got seriously injured. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the records, it is observed as follows: (i) The informant was examined on 12.08.2025 and he stated that he went to the wine shop asking for wine and at that juncture, the wine shop was about to be closed by the staff of the same. (ii) He asked for some wine but the owner told him in a rude way that they have closed the shop. (iii) He further stated that unable to get wine and after quarrelling with them verbally, he went out and Page No.# 4/5 at that he again came out for some work and he found the owner of the wine shop and his son i.e. the petitioners by hiring some goons who started abusing him and beat him up and that somehow he managed to save himself and he was taken to the hospital. 8. It is seen that the informant in the F.I.R had stated that the second time he went out to get medicines for his mother, but in his statement before the police, he stated that he went out for some work and that the owner of the wine shop was waiting with goons to attack him. It is unknown that as to how the owners of the shop or anyone else would know that the victim would again come out. The story is as such, doubtful. 9. In view of the above made submissions, this Court deems it fit to release the petitioner No. 2 on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with 2(two) local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court of C.J.M, Kamrup (M) under the following conditions : (i) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I/O as and when called for. (ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses connected with the case. (iii) The petitioners shall not leave his place of residence without the permission of Page No.# 5/5 theCourt of C.J.M, Kamrup (M). 10. The opinion expressed in the order will not have any affect in the trial of the case. 11. In view of the above, petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant