Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26239 (GAU)

RAJU GOGOI ALIAS DODOU v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2862/2025 · 2025-12-15

Pranjal Das

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010263962025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2862/2025 RAJU GOGOI ALIAS DODOU S/O LATE DURNA GOGOI R/O VILL- BOKAL GAON (NA-PAM), P.O. KHUBALIA P.S. DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DEKA, MR R HOQUE,S AHMEDA,MR. A CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. R Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application filed u/s 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner namely, Raju Gogoi @ Dodou in connection with Dhemaji P.S Case No. 173/2025 (G.R Case No. 490/2025) u/s 118(2)/109 of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of the allegation in FIR dated 12.10.2025 is that the petitioner attacked the informant’s husband with a dao and escaped after causing grievous injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though not admitting, the alleged incident, even if had taken place, might have done so in the spur of the moment and in an accidental way and that there is no criminal intention on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Mr. K Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that in the meantime, investigation is complete resulting in the charge-sheet against the petitioner vide charge-sheet No. 172/2025 dated 29.11.2025 indicating the petitioner as an absconder. 6. Drawing attention to the bank documents regarding transactions of money, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also paid more than Rs. 70,000/- to the alleged victim. It is submitted that he is willing to face trial, if any. 7. After giving my consideration to the facts and circumstances that have emerged in this case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner can be granted pre-arrest bail, though the allegation is about causing grievous injury. 8. Therefore, in the interim, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on pre-arrest bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting Page No.# 3/3 authority subject to the condition that : (i) The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Ld. Court below on the next date and on subsequent dates. (iii) The petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. (iv) The petitioner shall not harass or harm the informant/victim or his family member in any manner. 9. Violation of any of the conditions would be liable to cancellation of the bail order. 10. Bail petition is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant