Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010141802026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1556/2026 DIPANKAR RAY AND 3 ORS S/O UTTAM KUMAR RAY, R/O KHEKSHIYALI, P.O. DEBOTTAR HASDAHA, P.S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2: UTTAM KUMAR RAY S/O HARIMOHAN RAY R/O KHEKSHIYALI P.O. DEBOTTAR HASDAHA P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM. 3: HARSHAJIT RAY S/O UTTAM KUMAR RAY R/O KHEKSHIYALI P.O. DEBOTTAR HASDAHA P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM. 4: NANDA KUMAR RAY S/O HARIMOHAN RAY R/O KHEKSHIYALI P.O. DEBOTTAR HASDAHA P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A TARAFDAR(INFORMANT),MR. SURAJIT DAS(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. G. Chamua, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent and Mr. A. Tarafdar, learned counsel for the informant. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, (1) Dipankar Ray (2) Uttam Kumar Ray (3) Harshajit Ray (4) Nanda Kumar Ray, has prayed for granting pre- arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Golakganj P.S. Case No. 146/2026, registered under Section 61 (2)/117(2)/109/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. This Court by order dated 13-07-2026 had enlarged the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 on interim pre-arrest bail on one of the conditions that they should appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days and in pursuant to the said order, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 had appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements were recorded as could be seen from the case diary. So, as far as petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the order dated 13-07-2026 is made absolute and the said petitioners are allowed to remain on pre-arrest bail. 4. However, as far as the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the allegations framed against them in the FIR is that when the brother of the informant was returning back from his relative's house, petitioner No. 2 was heard Page No.# 3/3 speaking ill about him and when the brother of the informant confronted him, petitioner No. 1 attacked him with an iron rod and assaulted him. It is also stated that petitioner No. 2, who was also present threatened to kill the brother and he too assaulted on the head and other parts of the body. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the fight had taken place between the petitioners as well as the informant's brother and that they are all related to each other. He submits that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to commit the offence but at the spur of the moment the same had happened. 6. The learned counsel for the State however, has placed the medical report of the informant's brother wherein it is reflected that there are many injuries grievous in nature on the body of the victim. The learned counsel for the informant has also submitted that his brother was severely injured by the petitioners for which his brother is still under treatment. 7. In view of the same, this Court does not find it fit to enlarge the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 on pre-arrest bail and their prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. 8. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant