Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010249512025 2026:GAU-AS:1630 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2664/2025 SUMIT DEB AND 8 ORS. SON OF SUBHASH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR, BADARPUR DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI 2: SAURAV DEB SON OF SANTUSH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MUGRAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI 3: SANTUSH DEB SON OF LATE SUDHIR DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI 4: SUBRATA DEB SON OF SANTUSH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI 5: RITA RANI DEB WIFE OF SANTUSH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI 6: ARCHANA RANI DEB WIFE OF SUBASH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI 7: PAPPU DEB SON OF SUBASH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI 8: SHILPI DEB WIFE OF LATE ASHIT RANJAN DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUTTAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI 9: RAJ DEB SON OF LATE ASHIT RANJAN DEB Page No.# 2/5 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DUTTAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR P BORA,MS. M CHOUDHURY,MR. S DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. S. CHANDA(INFORMANT),MS. U NANDA(INFORMANT),MS. J GHOSH(INFORMANT),MR. S C BISWAS (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 06.02.2026 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioners, namely, (i) Sumit Deb (ii) Saurav Deb (iii) Santush Deb (iv) Subrata Deb (v) Rita Rani Deb (vi) Archana Rani Deb (vii) Pappu Deb (viii) Shilpi Deb (ix) Raj Deb, apprehending arrest in connection with Badarpur P.S. Case No. 175/2025 under Section 189(2)/191(2)/191(3)/190/329(3)/296/74/118(2)/117(2)/109/103(2) of BNS, 2023. Page No.# 3/5 3. The gist of the allegations in the FIR is about the accused persons attacking the members of the informant's side in a group, causing serious assault, grievous injuries and death of one person. 4. The learned Senior counsel has placed a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1370 to drive home the point regarding the aspect of parity in bail petition and that the role of the individual accused has to be seen. It is also submitted that the specific role of if any of petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 may also be seen. 5. Relying upon the decision of Sagar (supra), the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the situation of group assault, the individual roles have to be seen. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the unfortunate incident arose out of a quarrel pertaining to ancestral property and drawing attention to FIR dated 03-10- 2025, lodged by the petitioners side, alleging assault and causing of injuries by the members of the other side, whereupon Badarpur P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025 was registered. The date of the alleged incident is stated to be 02- 10-2025. It is stated that on 04-10-2025, the present FIR came to be filed, alleging large scale assault and causing of grievous injuries and death of one person named Sanjib Ghosh. It is submitted that this FIR was registered into Badarpur P.S. Case No. 175/2025, wherein the petitioners are seeking bail. It is submitted that the petitioners do not have previous criminal antecedents. 6. It is also submitted that the cross case is being investigated by another I/O, which is contrary to the principles laid down in various decisions, with regard to that State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (dead) & Ors., Page No.# 4/5 reported in (2003) 9 SCC 426. 7. The case diary has been received along with a bail objection. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that investigation has revealed sufficient incriminating materials and that, the PM report is available, which reveals the death due to blunt force trauma and that the brain matter was also visible. It is submitted that eyewitnesses have been implicated in their statements before police and Magistrate. It is submitted by the prosecution, supported by the learned counsel for the informant, that it is not a fit case to grant interim bail. 9. The learned counsel for the informant submits that this was a case of pre-planned murder and the victim was a neighbour who was brutally killed. 10. In the bail objection, the I/O has strongly objected to the grant of bail, contending that the investigation has lent support to the basic allegations and found the involvement of the petitioners in acts of causing serious violence upon the victims, resulting in grievous injuries and death of one victim who happened to be a neighboring person. 11. The post-mortem report indicates blunt force injuries on the head. The victim was allegedly hit by a stick and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the assault was so severe that even brain matter had come out. 12 The same principle is undoubtedly applicable at the stage of trial and to some extent even at the stage of bail. However, the materials indicate Page No.# 5/5 the involvement of the petitioners. Therefore, this judgment does not help the petitioner's side at this stage. The foresaid procedural irregularity, if any, should be addressed for the further/remaining investigations. 13. I have perused the contention of the bail objection and the materials including the photographs annexed and the medical report – I agreed with the prosecution that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the interim bail granted earlier vide order dated 12.11.2025 stands vacated and the bail payer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected at this stage. 14. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant