Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010020702026 2026:GAU-AS:3835 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/259/2026 MR KAMAL DAS C/O ANANTA DAS R/O- BARPETA WARD NO. 10, P.S. BARPETA, DISTRICT- BARPETA,ASSAM-781301. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B SHARMA, MS. P AGARWALA,MR. H DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 25/2026 u/s 296/115(2)/117(2)/75(2)/76/281/109(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. Case Diary is received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that from the contents of the FIR itself it is seen that such kind of incident is very improbable in a public gathering wherein admittedly the victim as well as the accused/persons visited there to attend a sradhya ceremony. However, it is a fact that there was a quarrel between the parties who are the neighbours due to some previous grudge. But, that apart there is no such incident took place as alleged in the FIR. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to extend his cooperation in the further investigation of this case, if he is provided with some interim protection. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials brought against the present petitioner and from the statement made by the witnesses as well as the complainant and in the Injury Report itself it is seen that due to such act of the present petitioner she sustained grievous injury on her person. He further submitted that it is not a case that he hit or assaulted the victim in the place of occurrence but, he tried to hit her twice by his car, when she came out from the said ceremony. Accordingly, he submitted that considering the conduct and the nature of offence, he may not be granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have Page No.# 3/3 also perused the Case Diary and it is a fact that there was a quarrel between the parties wherein the accused/petitioner has assaulted the victim. But, the subsequent conduct by which he hit the victim/informant causing grievous injury on her person does not deserve the privilege of pre-arrest bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is hereby rejected. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant