Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010174522026 2026:GAU-AS:12170 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1929/2026 NIRAK NGOMLE S/O TANI NGOMLE, HIME, WEST-SIANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K DEORI, MS. SOMILA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 25.08 . 2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. 2. The Case Diary, as called for by the order dated 20.08.2026, has been Page No.# 2/4 received. 3. This is a bail petition praying for grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Gerukamukh P.S. Case No. 08/2026 under Section 61 (2)/ 329 (1)/ 191 (2)/ 191 (3)/ 118 (1)/ 118 (2)/ 140 (1)/ 109 (1)/ 3 (5) BNS, 2023 R/sec 27 (1) Arms Act, 1959 for the petitioner, who is serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police with the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the FIR dated 10.08.2026, according to which the petitioner and 3 (three) other persons had opened fire on the villagers of Bodoty Gaon, Assam, thereby injuring 11 (eleven) persons, who had to be given medical aid. It is also alleged in the FIR that one person was forcibly taken away from the place of incident to the roadside and assaulted, and his teeth were broken. 5. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was present in his home village, i.e, Hime, on 09.08.2026 to celebrate his promotion to the Post of DSP, which was given by the order dated 29.07.2026. Having celebrated at home, he left at around 6 AM for Namsai as per directions received from the higher authorities for submission of Annual Confidential Report/ APARs(Annual Performance Appraisal Report) of the Subordinate Officers serving in the C Company, 2nd IRBn. 6. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to the register, where at serial No. 69, it has been shown that the APARs/ACRs had been received under Page No.# 3/4 a covering note from the petitioner on 10.08.2026. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner, being present at the office to submit the copies of the APRs, could not have been present at the place of occurrence, and the name of the petitioner has been involved without reason in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner had himself written an application on 12.08.2026 to the Superintendent of Police, wherein he had requested approval for transmission of the whole net message of the Superintendent of Police, Dhemaji, Assam, requesting verification of facts from the ground before initiating legal action against the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 21.08.2026 passed by this Court (Itanagar Bench) in AB No.106/2026, where, in another FIR lodged in connection with LKB/PS/FIR/NO. 38/2026, regarding the same incident in Likabali, Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner had been granted interim protection till production of the Case Diary. 8. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner may be allowed the privilege of pre-arrest protection in the present case also. 9. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has produced the Case Diary and has indicated the statement of the witnesses and the injured persons recorded during the investigation in connection with Gerukamukh P.S. Case No. 08/2026. He has submitted that the injured persons/witnesses had identified the petitioner. Since the documents indicate the use of firearms and pellets, a Page No.# 4/4 detailed investigation is being carried out, and in the event the petitioner is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail, the investigation would suffer. Accordingly, he has prayed that the prayer for anticipatory bail at this stage may be rejected. 10. I have considered the contents of the Case Diary, and I have also perused the documents placed on record by the petitioner. 11. The documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner do not convince this Court regarding his absence from the place of occurrence. This is a prima facie view; further, the progress of the investigation so far points towards the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident. At this stage of investigation, I am not of the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. 12. Accordingly, this bail petition is rejected at this stage. 13. It is made clear that the views expressed are only prima facie views of this Court and it would not in any manner be applicable to the investigation of the case. 14. Anticipatory bail application accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant