Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25317 (GAU)

DHRUBA GOHAIN ALIAS DHURBA BORGOHAIN AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/3011/2025 · 2025-12-17

Anjan Moni Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010283772025 2025:GAU-AS:17602 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3011/2025 DHRUBA GOHAIN ALIAS DHURBA BORGOHAIN AND ANR S/O LATE BULAN BORGOHAIN, RESIDNET OF DHARMA NAGAR, PO AND PS DHEMAJI, ASSAM 787057 2: ANKUR GOGOI @ ANGKUR JYOTI GOGOI S/OLATE PRADIP GOGOI R/O KUAPHALA P.O. KHUBOLIA P.S. DHEMAJI PIN-787057 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, J SINGPHO,A GHOSAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 18.12.2025 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicants. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Central Page No.# 2/4 Government Counsel appearing for the respondent. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicants in connection Dhemaji P.S. Case No.210/2025 registered under Sections 126(2)/ 117(2)/303(2)/324(4)/74/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The gist of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. dated 15.12.2025 is that the informant while visiting the Dhemaji Civil Hospital at about 10 p.m., her son-in-law along with her son went out for dinner wherein they met the accused No.1 i.e. Ranjan Dihingia, who without any reason attacked her son and her son-in-law. It was alleged that the accused No.2, i.e. Dhruba Gohain also joined the attack and tore the jacket and clothes of her son and destroyed his phone and snatched money. It was further alleged that when the informant asked regarding the attack, the accused No.2 grabbed her chest and tore down her blouse and punched her on her left eye as a result she was seriously injured. The police on receipt of the F.I.R. registered the Dhemaji P.S. Case No.210/2025 under the aforementioned sections. The learned counsel for the accused/applicants submits that there was some misunderstanding while having the dinner by the accused/applicants as well as the informant’s son and son-in-law and thereby some scuffle may have happened and minor injuries occurred to the informant. He submits that there was no intentional fight that has Page No.# 3/4 been alleged against the accused/applicants in the F.I.R. However, he submits that, since the police has registered the case, apprehending arrest the accused/applicants have approached this Court by filing the instant application seeking pre-arrest bail. The learned counsel submits that in the event of their release on pre-arrest bail, the accused/applicants will appear before the Investigating authority and fully cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the I.O. as and when called for. The learned Addl. P.P. submits that since the informant has alleged that she received grievous injuries, at this stage, the Case Diary may be called for and on perusal of the Case Diary the petition may be considered. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel, this Court is of the prima-facie opinion that there may be some scuffle due to certain misunderstanding and nothing intentional seems to have happened there. In view of the aforesaid and taking into account the whole matter in it’s entirety, this Court is of the view that the accused/applicants should be allowed the privilege of pre-arrest bail in connection with the aforesaid case. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of their arrest in Page No.# 4/4 connection with Dhemaji P.S. Case No.210/2025, the accused/applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- each with a surety each of the like nature to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions :- (1) That the accused/applicants shall appear before the I.O. within a period of 10 (Ten) days from the date of this order. (2) That the accused/applicants shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence. (3) That the accused/applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for. With the aforesaid directions, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant