Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010056882026 2026:GAU-AS:11926 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/608/2026 TOBIBAR RAHMAN SON OF LATE ABDUL MAZID RESIDENT OF VILL- KAYAKUCHI PATHAR, P.O. NALI GAON, P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 20.08.2026 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant and Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 46/2026 (G. R. Case No. 142/20260 Page No.# 2/5 registered under Section 126(2)/115(2) /118(2)/109 (1) /351(3) /3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The prosecution case in brief, is that, on 14.12.2026 at about 12.42 PM, the complainant lodged the FIR against the accused persons, namely, (i) Tobibur Rahmaan, (ii) Saddam Hussain, (iii) Ikramul Hoque, (iv) Kamala Khatun and (v) Nabab Ali alleging that the accused Tabibur Rahaman is the elder brother of the complainant and the remaining accused are the complainant’s nephews and sister-in- law; that on 14.01.2026, the accused had obstructed the complainant when the complainant attempted to dump soil on a plot of land currently under his possession using a tractor; that in the morning of 15.01.2026 at 06.30 AM while the accused was dumping soil with a tractor on Tobibar Rahman’s land, the complainant’s son, Rahul Amin arrived at the spot; that the accused persons surrounded the complainant’s son and started assaulting with an intention to kill him; that the accused Tabibar Rahman struck the boy on the head with a hoc (kor) from behind; that the boy was heat on his head and due to which he fell down and become unconscious; that 2 (two) individuals, namely, Akkas Ali and Hashmat Ali arrived at the spot and rescued the complainant’s son and took him to FAAMCH, Barpeta, wherein, the complainant’s son had been admitted. 4. On the basis of the FIR, the Police registered the Barpeta P.S. Case No. 46/2026 under the aforementioned sections. 5. A coordinate bench of this Court, vide its order dated 19.03.2026 had granted interim pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant with a condition that the accused applicant shall appear before the I.O. of the Page No.# 3/5 case within a period of 7 (seven) days. 6. In the meantime, during the pendency of the case, the charge sheet No. 74/2026 dated 24.04.2026 has been filed by the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the charge sheet along with Trial Court Record were called for from the Court of learned ACJM, Barpeta. 7. Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that since the interim pre-arrest bail has been granted to the accused applicant and the accused applicant has already appeared before the Investigating Officer, therefore, the interim pre- arrest bail granted to the accused applicant should be made absolute. He submits that in an anticipatory bail order, there should not be any time limit of such bail. He submits that filing of the charge sheet will not be considered to be termination of the anticipatory bail order. He submits that anticipatory bail order can be for the entire period of the trial. 8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has referred to the cases of (i) Md. Asfak Alam-vs-State of Jharkhand and Another; reported in (2023) 8 SCC 635 and (ii) Sumit-vs-State of UP and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 2026) (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1536/2026) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 09.02.2026. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel submits that interim anticipatory bail granted to the accused applicant should be made absolute and the accused applicant should be given the privilege of anticipatory bail during the period of trial. 10. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. PP submits Page No.# 4/5 that the charge sheet has been filed in the instant case and the Case Diary reveals incriminating materials against the accused applicant who had inflicted grievous injury on the son of the informant, therefore, he submits that the interim pre-arrest bail should be cancelled. He further submits that since the charge sheet has been laid down in the jurisdictional Court, the accused applicant can avail the privilege of regular bail by filing an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Court. 11. This Court has perused the TCR including the charge sheet filed in the instant case. 12. This Court has also considered the 2 (two) case laws submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant. 13. On perusal of the aforesaid 2 (two) case laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is in agreement with the principles laid down regarding laws of anticipatory bail. There is no disagreement that the anticipatory bail does not automatically get terminated when a charge sheet has been filed or charges have been framed. It is also not denied that anticipatory bail can be granted for the whole period of trial in spite of that particular case. However, taking into account the prima facie incriminating materials available in the instant case, this Court is not inclined to grant interim pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant but taking into account the entire facts and the offences involved and also the conduct of the accused applicant, this Court disposes of the instant anticipatory bail application with a liberty to the accused applicant to approach the jurisdictional Court, if so advised. It is also made clear that liberty is granted to the accused applicant to Page No.# 5/5 approach the jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief and 15 days from today has been granted for the accused applicant to approach the jurisdictional Court, if so advised and until his appearance within 15 days, the interim pre-arrest bail granted by a coordinate bench of this Court vide, its order dated 19.03.2026, shall stand extended. JUDGE Comparing Assistant