Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010016752026 2026:GAU-AS:1884 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/191/2026 GOPI DEB AND 3 ORS. S/O LATE GOURANGO DEB VILLAGE- RANGABAK PART-II, UNDER KATLICHERRA POLICE STATION DISTRICT HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. 2: ANUPOM DEB SON OF GOPI DEB VILLAGE- RANGABAK PART-II UNDER KATLICHERRA POLICE STATION DISTRICT HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 3: BISHAL DEB S/O GOPI DEB VILLAGE- RANGABAK PART-II UNDER KATLICHERRA POLICE STATION DISTRICT HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 4: BAPON DEB S/O NITYANANDA DEB VILLAGE- APPIN GRANT UNDER KATLICHERRA POLICE STATION DISTRICT HAILAKANDI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, J MEDHI (INFORMANT),R BORAH(INFORMANT),MR. P DAIMARY(INFORMANT),MR. P K DEKA(INFORMANT),MR. I Page No.# 2/6 H LASKAR(INFORMANT) BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 11.02.2026. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the informant. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Sri Gopi Deb, (2) Sri Anupom Deb, (3) Sri Bishal Deb and (4) Sri Bapon Deb, who are apprehending arrest in connection with the Katlichera P.S. Case No. 06/2026, registered under Sections 189(3)/329(3)/117(2)/118(2)/ 324(4)/303(2) of the BNS, 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel that there was a quarrel took place between two groups but they have not inflicted any injury on the victim. However, as per the information one/two victim sustained some injuries for the alleged incident. It further submitted that on the day of incident i.e. on 26.01.2026, it was a dry day and the informant side had forcibly make them open the wine shop and from there they took wine to their hotel forcibly Page No.# 3/6 and for that reason only there was a quarrel between two groups and apart from that there is no such incident took place as alleged in the FIR. Further he submitted that even if one grievous injury is sustained victim, that cannot be caused/inflicted by all the accused persons as named in the FIR. The petitioner No.1 is the father of the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and the petitioner No.4 is their cousin. Thus, they all belong to the same family and it is also not believable that the father and sons will go together with an intention to assault the informant side. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that all the accused petitioners may not be involved in the alleged offence. Accordingly, it is submitted by him that even if one grievous injury was caused by one of the accused petitioner, that cannot be inflicted by all the accused persons and thus Sections 117(2)/118(2) of the BNSS cannot be attracted against all the accused petitioners. In view of this, the petitioners are also entitled for the privilege of pre-arrest bail. However, they are ready and will to extend their cooperation in the further investigation of the case, if they are allowed to go on bail. Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel also raised the issue that prior to the filing of the present petition, the petitioner No.1 received the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, from which also it can be considered that initially the case was registered, wherein the penalty was for only seven years. Further, the petitioners being the local persons, there is no chance of absconding, rather they will extend their cooperation in further investigation of the case. Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted in this regard that all the accused petitioners went together with a criminal mind to kill the victim, namely, Rinku Choudhury and they all went to the house of Rinku Page No.# 4/6 Choudhury with sharp weapon. Further, he submitted that initially the accused petitioners visited the hotel of one Parimal Das searching for Rinku Choudhury and in that process, they also vandalized the hotel and also assaulted said Parimal. Thereafter, when they did not find the victim/ Rinku Choudhury, they went to his house with criminal intention/ criminal mind and assaulted all the victims causing grievous injury to one person and simple injury to other victims. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that considering the nature and the injuries sustained as well as the conduct of the accused petitioners, Section 109 of the BNSS is also subsequently added during the investigation. Accordingly, Mr. Borthakur raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners. Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the informant/victim submitted in this regard that one of the victim who sustained grievous injury is still undergoing treatment and presently, as per information, the victim is admitted in Rahman Hospital, Guwahati for better treatment. Mr. Deka further submitted that the intention of the accused petitioners was to kill the victim but due to interruption of the other family members and local people, they could not kill the victim but assaulted brutally with sharp object, causing grievous injury to his person. Accordingly, Mr. Deka also raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case and other annexure filed along with the petition. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is seen Page No.# 5/6 that the Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 notice was issued to the present petitioners but it is seen that the case was already registered under Sections 117(2)/118(2) of the BNSS and it may be a wrong impression while issuing the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. Further it is seen that during the investigation, Section 109 of the BNSS is also added in the present case. It reveals from the case diary that the victim sustained one grievous injury on his head but from the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that all the accused petitioners went together with a criminal intention in the night of occurrence and they entered into the premises of the informant, brutally assaulted the victim, specially victim Rinku Choudhury who sustained grievous injury on his head. More so, from the materials available in the case diary, it is also seen that their intention was to cause grievous hurt/to kill the victim and with that intention only, they also visited the hotel of one Parimal Das and as the victim Rinku Choudhury was not present in the hotel, they immediately came to the house of the informant/victim and assaulted all the victims brutally causing grievous injury to one of them. Thus it is seen that there may be one grievous injury on the head of the victim Rinku Choudhury but for that reason only, it cannot be considered that the other accused persons are not involved in the alleged offence. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the injuries sustained by the victims and also considering the conduct of all the accused petitioners, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the present petitioners at this stage and accordingly, the same stands rejected. Page No.# 6/6 In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant