Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010202832026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2268/2026 DHURBAJYOTI KALITA S/O BUBUL KALITA, R/O H NO 39 E, NAMGHAR PATH, HATIGAON, PS HATIGAON, DIST KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN 781038 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SARMA, MS. B BHUYAN,MS R SAHIN,MS M KAKOTY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 23.09.2026 Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 317/2026, registered under Sections 296(a), 118(2), 324(4)(5), 109(1), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR, in connection with which the petitioner apprehends arrest, was lodged on 18.08.2026, by the victim himself, who is also the informant, stating that while he was going towards a café, one Jyotirmoy Barman, along with the petitioner and other persons, approached him in a group, and that the petitioner and the others had surrounded him and assaulted him. It is further alleged that, as a result of the assault, he sustained injuries on his head and other parts of his body and suffered a fracture of his right hand. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the name of the petitioner was simply dragged in the incident and that he had not assaulted the victim. The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner in fact was injured in the said incident of quarrel and assault between the informant and other persons. 5. On the other hand Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned counsel for the APP, on perusal of the Case Diary, submits that, there are statements of the witnesses, who had stated that the petitioner along with others had assaulted the informant and injured him. He stated that, it is also in the statement of other witnesses that the petitioner and other had vandalized the motorcycle of the informant as well as the Café of which, the informant was the manager. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, more so in view of the fact that, the petitioner had assaulted the informant for which the informant had sustained injuries and also due to the fact, that Page No.# 3/3 petitioner was named by the informant in the First Information Report itself as well as by the other witnesses, this Court does not deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail at this stage. 7. The petition is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant