Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010237752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2576/2025 UTPAL PEGU AND ORS S/O BAPARAM PEGU R/O VILL RAKUT KEMERE PS JONAI DIST DHEMAJI ASSAM 2: FALGUNI PEGU S/O GUBINDA PEGU R/O VILL RAKUT KEMERE PS JONAI DIST DHEMAJI ASSAM 3: HIREN KUTUM S/O BONSHI KUTUM R/O VILL RAKUT KEMERE PS JONAI DIST DHEMAJI ASSAM 4: ANIL PEGU S/O KADANG PEGU R/O VILL RAKUT KEMERE PS JONAI DIST DHEMAJI ASSAM 5: JARNA PEGU ALIAS JHARNA TARAK PEGU W/O BIKASH PEGU R/O VILL RAKUT KEMERE PS JONAI DIST DHEMAJI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 03.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Utpal Pegu, 2. Falguni Pegu, 3. Hiren Kutum, 4. Anil Pegu and 5. Smti. Jarna Pegu @ Jharna Tarak Pegu who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jonai P.S. Case No. 37/2025 under Sections 61(2)/189(2)/103(2) of BNS. 3. Before filing of this bail application, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing a connected bail application which was dismissed after perusal of the case diary. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners had earlier approached this Court during the pendency of the investigation and now the investigation has completed and charge-sheet has been laid, hence, their custodial interrogation may not be necessary in this case. He submits that filing of a charge-sheet may be regarded as a new ground for consideration of this instant anticipatory bail application. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioners on the ground that the offence involved in this case is a grave offence of murder of one Dibyajyoti Kutum by the petitioners. He further submits that since this Court had rejected the earlier application for bail after finding sufficient incriminating Page No.# 3/4 materials against the petitioners and since the charge-sheet has already been laid against them, they cannot take advantage by remaining absconding during investigation and approaching this Court seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that charge-sheet has been laid. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. It appears from record that the instant case involves around the accusation that the present petitioners had assaulted the husband of the first informant on 02.05.2025, as a result of which he has sustained serious injuries on his person and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. 8. It appears that while considering the application for anticipatory bail which was filed on earlier occasion by the petitioners, this Court has gone through the case diary and found sufficient materials against the petitioners. The completion of investigation and laying of the charge-sheet may not be only the ground on which an application for bail may have to be considered. The role played by the petitioners and nature of accusations made against them is also a factor to be considered while considering an application for anticipatory bail that too which was moved for the second time. 9. In the instant case, the petitioners remain absconder during the period of investigation and after finding sufficient materials against them for their role in killing of the husband of the informant, this Court is of considered opinion that mere filing of the charge-sheet may not be considered as a favourable condition on the basis of which bail may be granted to the present petitioners. The petitioners have failed to show any other new ground for which this Page No.# 4/4 anticipatory bail application should be favourably considered. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant