Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010154712026 2026:GAU-AS:10380 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1708/2026 SRI HARINDER SAHANI SON OF LALAN SAHANI, RESIDENT OF DIGBOI CHARIALI, DIGBOI, DISTRICT TINSUKIA, ASSAM - 786171. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SENSUA, MS. D SARMAH,P KHATANIAR,R A LAHKAR,G KAUSHIK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Mr Santanu Borthakur learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr Bankim Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Digboi PS Case No. 12/2026, registered under Sections 189(4)/127(2)/196(1)(b)/103(1)/ 103(2) of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to GR Case No. 44/2026. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never named in the First Information Report, but he was arrayed as an accused person in the Page No.# 2/3 charge sheet submitted in pursuance to the said FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fact that the petitioner had caught the deceased person while he was trying to steal from the fish market, but after that, the petitioner left that place where other people gathered and he is not aware as to what happened after that. The learned counsel submits that at no point of time, the Police went to the petitioner’s house in search of him, but he is shown as an absconder in the charge sheet. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was very much present in his house along with his family members and it cannot be a fact Police had gone to his house. 4. On the other hand, Mr B Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that in the FIR lodged on 12.02.2026, it is stated that apart from the named accused persons in the said FIR, there are other persons involved in the commission of the offence as such, during investigation, the name of the petitioner surfaced and he was arrayed as an accused person. 5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have gone through the records of the case and it is seen that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and 5 (five) numbers of accused persons were, in fact, named therein. It is also noticed that the petitioner has admitted that he had caught the deceased person as the same was reflected in the charge sheet wherein it is stated that the petitioner along with another had detained the victim and assaulted him with kicks and blows. It is also stated in the FIR that after that, many people gathered and the victim was assaulted. However, no exact overt act was ascribed to the petitioner and in view of the same, this Court finds it fit to release the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with one local surety to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Margherita, under the following conditions:- i) the petitioner shall appear before the learned SDJM, Margherita within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this order without fail; and ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, Page No.# 3/3 and/or influence the witnesses. 6. However, if the petitioner does not appear before the learned SDJM, Margherita, it would be open to the said Court to cancel the bail. 7. Bail Application stands disposed of. 8. Further, it is made clear that the observations made in this order will not have any bearing on the trial of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant