Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010257892025 2025:GAU-AS:15933 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2769/2025 SMTI BACHCHANI BALA RAY AND 2 ORS. W/O- LATE SURIA RAY, P/R- DEBATTAR HASDAHA, PT-V, P.S.- GOLAKGANJ, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2: SMTI. ULO BALA RAY @ ULLO RAY W/O SRI UTTAM KR. RAY P/R DEBATTAR HASDAHA PT.V P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM 3: MAMPI RAY @ CHANCHALL @ POMPI RAY W/O SRI PRAFULLA RAY P/R DEBATTAR HASDAHA PT.V P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, N O POMONG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 24.11.2025 Heard Mrs. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Golakganj P.S. Case No.255/2025 registered under Section 61(2)/117(2)/109(1)/3(5) of the BNS Act. The FIR dated 24.10.2025 reveals that the petitioners along with 3 (three) others in response to a previous enmity, came with rods in their hands in front of the house of the accused person and struck the brother of the informant and injured him on his head and broke his skull. It is also stated the petitioners along with others had assaulted other persons who had come to helped the injured and caused injuries upon them to. 3. Mrs. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that although in the FIR, it is written that condition of the brother of the informant was serious, however, in the rejection order dated 10.11.2025, the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Dhubri, on perusal of the doctor’s report had stated that the injury report was simple in nature. She further submits that all the petitioners are women and no overt act is attributed to any of them in the alleged incident. 4. Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor however, submits that the name of the petitioners are stated specifically in the First Information Report to have assaulted not only the injured but also the others who had come to protect the injured persons and as such, has objected to the bail of the petitioners. 5. On the submissions made by the counsels at the Bar and specifically for the fact that no specific Page No.# 3/3 act has been attributed to the petitioners in the alleged incident and that the doctor has reported the injuries to be simple, this Court deems it fit that the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with one local surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions : (i). They should co-operate with the investigation. (ii). They should not influence any witnesses connected with the case. (iii). They should not leave their place of residence without the permission of the arresting authorities. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant