Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010055562025 2025:GAU-AS:3611 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./773/2025 PINKI GOGOI W/O- SRI RAJ KUMAR DAS, R/O- KOKRATOLI GAON, PS- TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H BURAGOHAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 27-03-2025 Heard Mr. H. Buragohain , the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 02.03.2025 in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 60/2025 u/s 296, 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 R/W Section 25(1)(B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act dated 01.03.2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 149/2025. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. 4. Mr. Borgohain submitted in this regard that the first FIR was lodged by the accused/petitioner on 28.02.2025, when the informant side had trespassed into their land inspite of an order of injunction, assaulted the present petitioner. Immediately he rushed to the police station and lodged the FIR. After lodging of the FIR, only on 01.03.2025 the present FIR is lodged against them with some false and concocted allegation wherein it is alleged that they used the firearm to threaten the present informant. It is a fact that one firearm was seized from the accused/petitioner in connection with the case which is a licensed firearm that belongs to his father and the same was not used as alleged in the FIR. Rather one more arm was recovered/seized from the informant side along a live ammunition by the police during investigation. More so, the FIR was lodged on 01.03.2025 at about 9:20 PM though the investigation is started prior to the lodging of the FIR. Mr. Borgohain further submitted that the accused is in custody since 02.03.2025 and thus the Investigating Officer got sufficient time to interrogate the accused/petitioner in custody. However, he is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case, if he is granted the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that some empty cartridges were also seized in connection with the case and the FSL report is not available in the Case Diary, though the cartridges were Page No.# 3/3 already sent for FSL examination. As it is alleged that those empty cartidges were fired through the arm of the present accused/petitioner, the FSL report is very essential for which he is charged under the Arms Act, which is a serious offence and investigation is still under progress and accordingly he raised objection and submitted that it is not a fit case to grant the accused bail at this stage. 6. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the informant submitted in this regard that the arms was used in the said offence and threatened the informant side. Further, he submitted that the present accused/petitioner was also accompanied with another person who is yet to be nabbed by the police and the investigation is still going on to that effect. Mr. Gupta further submitted that if the present petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there may be chance of hampering or tampering with evidence in further investigation of the case. Accordingly, he raised objection in granting bail to the present petitioner. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that one FIR is also lodged by the petitioner prior to lodging of FIR by informant of the present case. But, considering the nature of offence as alleged against the present petitioner and also considering the materials in the Case Diary and the fact that FSL Report is yet to be received, I do not find it justified to allow the petitioner bail at this stage and hence stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant