Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010212162026 2026:GAU-AS:14848 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2972/2026 SRI NARUTTAM PEGU AND 4 ORS S/O UPEN PEGU PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBHARI PO JALBHARI PS DHAKUWAKHANA DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI 2: MR ARUN DOLEY S/O SARGESWAR DOLEY PERMANENT R/O VILL. JENGRAI MAGUAKCHUK UNDER P.S. JENGRAIMUKH IN THE DIST. OF MAJULI ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF PANIKHAITI APBN CAMPUS GUWAHATI IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3: MR RANOJ DOELY S/O DURGESWAR DOLEY PERMANENT R/O VILL. JENGRAI MAGUACHUK P.S. JENGRAIMUKH IN THE DIST. OF MAJULI ASSAM DN PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VIP ROAD CHACHAL AMTAL IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP M ASSAM. 4: NILAKANTA PEGU S/O MOGAN PEGU PERMANENT R/O VILL. UJANI SHEPAI P.S. JENGRAIMUKH IN THE DIST. OF MAJULI ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KHANAPARA DEBANAGAR GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/3 IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP M ASSAM. 5: JITU DOLEY S/O LATE INDURAM DOELY PERMANENT R/O VILL. LIGRAMUKH CHANG P.S. GORMUR IN THE DIST. OF MAJULI ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BELTOLA GUWAHATI IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A KHANIKAR, R L CHUTIA,MR. B PEGU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 05.10.2026 1. Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 143/2026 registered under Sections 11991)/191(2)/196(1)(c)/296/324(4)/326(g)/351(2)/351(3)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioners were arrested was lodged by one Tutu Kalita stating inter alia that the petitioners came to a dhaba and Page No.# 3/3 asked the staff thereof to serve them liquor. When the staff informed them that the wine shop had already been closed, the accused persons allegedly abused the staff verbally and assaulted him. It is further alleged that the accused persons started damaging the utensils and other articles of the dhaba. It is also alleged that the petitioners brought some other persons with them who along with the petitioners damaged the dhaba and thereafter set fire to it. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the story narrated in the FIR is a concocted story and that the petitioners have been implicated solely on the basis of the CCTV footage and the fact that they had made the payment of the bill at the dhaba through online mode. 5. Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned APP on perusal of the case diary submits that there are witnesses who have implicated the petitioners in the vandalism of the dhaba. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, more so in view of the fact that the witnesses have stated that the petitioners created a ruckus by asking the staff of the dhaba to serve them liquor and there are also witnesses who have stated that the petitioners vandalised the dhaba one of them being a police officer who was expected to maintain the situation, this Court does not deem it fit to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant