Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010023032026 2026:GAU-AS:1882 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AB/2873/2025 DINESH NONIA AND 2 ORS SON OF LATE BHOLA PRASHAD NONIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIVIA BAZAR PO OLIVIACHERRA PS RATABARI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM 2: CHANDAN NONIA SON OF LATE BHOLA PRASHAD NONIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIVIA BAZAR PO OLIVIACHERRA PS RATABARI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM 3: GAUTAM NUNIA SON OF LATE BHOLA PRASHAD NONIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIVIA BAZAR PO OLIVIACHERRA PS RATABARI DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR SISHIR DUTTA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Page No.# 2/4 Date : 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Das, the learned counsel for the informant who appeared and filed his Vakalatnama and Ms. A. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for pre-arrest bail in favour of the accused/petitioners in connection with Ratabari P.S. Case No. 163/2025 u/s 109/117(2)/118(2)/351(2)/103(1)/3(5) of BNS. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an altercation and quarrel between two groups wherein the 9 nos. of persons from informant side had attacked the family of the accused/persons and some of them also sustained grievous injury on their person for which they approached police station and at about 10:30 AM on the very day of occurrence they lodged an FIR and the present FIR has been lodged as counter blast of the said FIR. However, he submitted that it is not denied that there was an altercation and quarrel between two groups and both the parties sustained injuries and out of which one person died from the informant side. He further submitted that these three accused/persons earlier approached the learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail but as the anticipatory bail petition was rejected they could not appear before the I/O for which their names have been shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet. However, they are ready and willing to appear before the learned Sessions Judge/learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed. All the three petitioners are from the same locality and Page No.# 3/4 they will provide sufficient surety if bail of the present petitioners are granted at this stage. 5. Ms. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that it is a fact that there is a cross case between the parties but all the present petitioners including one Rajen Nunia also brutally assaulted the informant side for which some of the victim sustained grievous injuries on their person and one Borun Namasudra died. She further submitted that he was brutally killed by these petitioners including the other accused mentioned in the FIR and there are several eye-witnesses also to that extent. Accordingly, she submitted that this may not be a fit case for extending the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners who did not cooperate with the IO during the investigation of this case. 6. Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the informant also submitted in this regard that some injured persons are still under treatment who has sustained grievous injuries for the said incident. All the accused/persons brutally killed the deceased by using blunt object and other weapons. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the informant also raised objection and submitted that this is not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. 7. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexrues filed along with the petition. From the record it is seen that there was a quarrel between two groups but it is seen that some of the victims sustained grievous injuries out of the alleged incident. In the same time, one person also died for the said incident and the name of these four accused-persons are being uttered by all the witnesses in this case. Further from the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and from the record also it is seen that after rejection of their Page No.# 4/4 anticipatory bail they could not cooperate with the I/O during investigation in spite of the knowledge that the case is pending against them, they remained absconding during the entire investigation. So, considering the conduct of the petitioners as well as the nature of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioners. However, all the petitioners are hereby directed to appear before the learned Trial Court below with an appropriate application for bail, which may be considered in accordance with law. As informed the next date is fixed 16.02.2026 and till then as a interim no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 8. With the above observations, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant