Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010221112025 2025:GAU-AS:15277 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2411/2025 ANANTA DUTTA AND ANR S/O- LATE RUPEN DUTTA. R/O- TITABOR BIRINA SAYEK. P.O.- BIRINA SAYEK, P.S.- TITABOR, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM. 2: DIGANTA DUTTA S/O- LATE RUPEN DUTTA. R/O- TITABOR BIRINA SAYEK. P.O.- BIRINA SAYEK P.S.- TITABOR DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 12.11.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. D. Gogoi, for the petitioners, (1) Ananta Dutta and (2) Diganta Dutta who have filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with PRC Case No. 156/2025 arising out of Titabor Police Station Case No. 65/2025 under Section 126(2)/ 281/125(a)/117(2)109/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. The FIR unfolds that on 05.05.2025 while Tapan Dutta was on his way back home, he was waylaid by some miscreants who tried to attack and kill him near Dharmeswar Saikia’s Rice Mill. The miscreants ordered him to get off from his car and at that time one person riding the bike hit him on his leg and he fell down on the road and the others attacked him with iron road and bamboo sticks. He became unconscious and the neighbouring people came to his rescue and he was shifted to Titabor Civil Hospital and thereafter, he was referred to JMCH for better treatment as he was gravely injured. He has named the petitioners as two of the six miscreants who attacked him on that fateful night. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials and charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioners as a prima facie case has been found against the petitioners. 5. I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records. Page No.# 3/4 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdeo Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & ORS. in SLP Criminal No. 17805/2024 dated 17.09.2025 held that High Court should always encourage an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself as this balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. It was further observed that secondly, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction from granting anticipatory bail, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. 7. Against the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal. C & Anr. Vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. Special SLP Criminal No. 6588/2025 dated 08.09.2025, that:- “ 9. It is trite that in most of the States, there is a consistent practice requiring the litigant concerned to first approach the Sessions Court for seeking relief of pre-arrest bail and only in the event of denial of such relief, the litigant would be granted access to approach the High Court for seeking such relief. This is, of course, subject to just exceptions and the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, may entertain an application for pre-arrest bail directly in special/extra-ordinary circumstances. 10. Let notices be issued on this aspect to the High Court of Kerala through the Registrar General. We also appoint Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel as Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Advocate, to assist this Court in this matter”. 8. It is submitted that this matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court has relied on the observation of both the matters i.e., SLP Criminal No. 17805/2024 as well as the SLP Criminal No. 6588/2025. Page No.# 4/4 9. The merits of this case have also been taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as this matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no Bar for the High Court to decide the bail petition. 10. I have also considered the fact that vide order dated 16.09.2025 in Criminal Petition No. 1143/2025, despite being directed by this Court to appear before the learned Committal Court within 15 days and apply for bail, the petitioners have failed to appear and comply with a direction of this Court. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the case diary which resulted in the submission of charge sheet. 12. After scrutinizing the Trial Court Records, this Court is hesitant to discuss the merits of this case as this case is ready for trial as charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners. Without bringing the merits of this case on record, at this juncture, it appears that the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 13. Thereby, the petitioners prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant