Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26926 (GAU)

SRI SAGAR MAHATO ALIAS MAHATOO AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2332/2025 · 2025-12-16

Pranjal Das

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010212322025 2025:GAU-AS:17567 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2332/2025 SRI SAGAR MAHATO ALIAS MAHATOO AND ANR SON OF SRI SANUJ MAHATOO, R/O PALTANBAZAR, RAILWAY LINE, P.O. JALAN NAGAR, P.O.AND P.S. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2: SRI PRAKASH MAHATO ALIAS MAHATOO SON OF SRI SANUJ MAHATOO R/O PALTANBAZAR JALAN NAGAR DIBRUGARH ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH, MS. P HANDIQUE,MR. P K BORDOLOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 17.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. D Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners namely, (1) Sri. Sagar Mahato @ Mahatoo and (2) Sri. Prakash Mahato @ Mahatoo in connection with Dibrugarh P.S Case No. 193/2025 u/s 118(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR dated 09.06.2025 reveals that the petitioners had assaulted the sons of the informant and other boys who were discussing about some work at a particular place by bringing an axe from their house and had assaulted the boys on the head and arm and had caused grievous injuries. It is alleged that both the petitioners i.e. Sagar Mahatoo and Prakash Mahatoo had assaulted the victims and others. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that with regard to the same incident, the FIR was lodged by Smt. Sarita Devi which was registered as Dibrugarh P.S Case No. 193/2025 and the said case has already been charge- sheeted vide charge-sheet No. 210/2025 and the same is also reflected in the last order dated 02.12.2025. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to grant of the interim pre-arrest bail order, they have appeared before the I/O and got their statements recorded. 5. Mr. K Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, opposing the bail, submits on the basis of the Case Dairy that investigation has sufficiently incriminated the petitioners and the medical/injury report of the victims are also available and two of the victims have suffered grievous injuries. 6. I have perused the said medical reports which indicate hematoma i.e. collection of blood. There is indication of assault on the area around the kidney leading to injuries detected medically. 7. With regard to the victim Kanhaiya Prasad, the medical report indicates Page No.# 3/3 fracture in the neck area and also fracture in the metacarpal area of hand. The injuries have been categorized as grievous. 8. It is submitted by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that statement of witnesses have also implicated besides the statement of the informant who has supported the allegations. Prima facie it appears to be a case of mutual ‘marpit’ between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that members of their family also suffered serious injuries. 9. In the Case Diary there is a noting regarding the injured victims and mentioning the injury report of 5(five) were collected indicating grievous injury on two victims and simple injury on the others. 10. From the investigation materials it appears that there were significant assaults from the petitioner side leading to injuries on as many as five persons with two of them suffering from grievous injuries, some of which have already been discussed above. 11. Though the petitioners have appeared before the I/O and got their statements recorded, but investigation is still in progress and considering the serious nature of the materials revealed, I am of the considered view that no fetters should be imposed on the remaining investigation and that it may not be an appropriate case for granting anticipatory bail. 12. In such view of the matter, the interim pre-arrest bail is vacated and the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected. 13. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant