Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10909 (GAU)

SUBHASHIS KAR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1278/2026 · 2026-07-21

Anjan Moni Kalita

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010115862026 2026:GAU-AS:10017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1278/2026 SUBHASHIS KAR S/O SHRI SUJAY KR. KAR, R/O GOSSAIGAON, HOUSE NO. 567,NEAR UCO BANK, WARD NO. 4, P.O. AND P.S. GOSSAIGAON, DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783360. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM,GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 22-07-2026 Heard Mr. S K Das, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/2 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant in connection with BI(EO) Guwahati P.S. Case No. 08/2021, corresponding to GR Case No. 9446/2021 registered u/s 120(b)/420/468/471 IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of the PC & MCS(B) Act, 1978 and Section 5 of the APID Act, 2013. 3. Mr. S K Das, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that another person has already been granted bail in connection with the case. Therefore, the accused/applicant shall be given the privilege of pre- arrest bail. 4. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the prayer of the accused/applicant submitting that investigation of the instant case is in a very nascent stage and custodial detention of the accused/applicant is required for further investigation of the case. Therefore, he opposed the prayer of pre-arrest bail of the accused/applicant. 6. This court after hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and after perusal of the Case Diary, does not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused/applicant and accordingly the same stands rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant