Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010151152026 2026:GAU-AS:10979 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1713/2026 RAJIB ALI ALIAS AJIJUL HAQUE SON OF ASTAB ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARALABARI, CHANGSARI, P.S. CHANGSARI, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : S SHARMA, G BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 07.08.2026 Heard Ms. S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents. 2. By way of this application filed under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023, the applicant, namely, Rajib Ali @ Ajijul Haque, who is apprehending arrest, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Changsari P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 147/2026, registered under Sections 126(2)/109(1) of the BNS. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.06.2026, at about 8.00 P.M., while the informant was returning to his house, the accused/applicant suddenly intercepted him and, after abusing him, physically assaulted him by slapping and punching him. It is further alleged that the accused/applicant attacked the informant with a dao with the intention of causing severe bodily harm. Accordingly, a case was registered. 4. Ms. S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the petitioner did not assault the informant and that only a scuffle had taken place between them. She further submits that the allegations relating to physical assault and the attack with a dao are completely false. 5. Per contra, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that, as per the medical report available in the case diary, the injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature. He further submits that the statements of the witnesses have already been recorded during the course of the investigation. 6. The case diary as called for is placed before this Court. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the case diary. 8. Considering that the statements of the witnesses have already been recorded and that the medical injury report pertaining to the victim has also been obtained, which indicates that the injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary at this stage. Page No.# 3/3 9. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant named above, shall be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with the above noted case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:- i) That the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days, failing which on and from the 11th day, the pre-arrest bail order shall have no force; ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. iii) That the applicant shall not tamper with, destroy, or alter any evidence related to this case. iv) That the applicants shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission. 10. The anticipatory bail application, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant