Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010266702024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3279/2024 BAPAN MAZUMDER S/O BHRAMHALAL MAZUMDER, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMARA PATHAR, PO HAHARA, PS SONAPUR, DIST KAMRUP ASSAM 782402 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A RAHMAN, MR. A K AZAD,MR A H AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 03.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Bapan Mazumder, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 217/2024 under Sections 191(2) / Page No.# 2/3 191(3) /121(2) /132 /117(2) /118(2) /324(4) /324(5) /61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.11.2024, one Abdul Kader Sheikh, SI of Police of Sonapur Police Station had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Sonapur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 02.11.2024, at around 7.28 PM, an information was received regarding illegal gambling in Kolongpar Switch Gate area. Upon receipt of the information, the first informant along with the police staff rushed to the place of occurrence and observed some gamblers busy in gambling activities. Upon witnessing the police, the gamblers fled away. It is stated in the FIR that while the police was in the process of collecting materials used in gambling, the accused persons named in the FIR, including the present petitioner along with 200 other people started obstructing the police vehicle and started attacking the police personnel. In the attack, some of the police personnel suffered injuries on their persons and the front glass of the police vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 30 9178 was also destroyed. The driver of the police vehicle was also severely assaulted by the miscreant staff. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR and the allegations levelled against him in the FIR are not true. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation and he may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Sonapur P.S. Case No. 217/2024 and has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He has submitted that the police personnel have suffered serious injuries and the independent witnesses have Page No.# 3/3 implicated the present petitioner of assaulting the police personnel. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials on record including the case diary. 7. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that a couple of independent witnesses have implicated the present petitioner of assaulting the police personnel with some other accused persons. As the present petitioner has been implicated by the independent witnesses of having assaulted the police personnel, this Court is of considered opinion that this is not a fit case where the anticipatory bail may granted to the petitioner, hence, the same is rejected. 8. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. 9. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant