Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010156252025 2026:GAU-AS:5720 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1717/2025 MADHUCHHAYA CHAKRABORTY D/O- MONORANJAN CHAKRABORTY. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BHABEN GOGOI PATH, BYE LANE NO.5, NEAR ARUNACHAL BHAWAN, BORDOLOI NAGAR, TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125. 2: TAMISHA CHAKRABORTY K.P. ROAD NEAR NAMGHAR DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DUTTA, MS S MOCHAHARI,MR S DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 27-04-2026 Page No.# 2/4 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S Mochahari, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, namely, [1] Madhuchhaya Chakraborty and [2] Tamisha Chakraborty in connection with G.R. No. 410/2025, Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 206/2025 under Sections 118(2)/109 of BNS, 2023. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner no. 1 dated 24.07.2025, she already appeared before the I/O, cooperated in the investigation and her statement was also recorded during investigation of this case. He further submitted it was a dispute between the husband and wife where the wife / the petitioner has to take such step when the informant/husband of the petitioner tried to assault her son and herself. Only to save herself she had to stab wherein the informant sustained some injury. But, here is no intention of causing any hurt to the informant. At the spar of the moment the incident had happened. She also immediately lodged an FIR intimating the entire facts of the case before police station. But, that was not registered and subsequently the FIR lodged by her husband/informant was registered and charge-sheeted u/s 118(2)/109 of BNS. Page No.# 3/4 5. Mr. Dutta further relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed on 09.02.2026 in case of Sumit v. State of U.P. & Anr. arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1536/2026 and basically emphasized on para 21 wherein an emphasis has been made in case of Delhi High Court v. CBI, reported in (2004) SCC OnLine Delhi 53 and special emphasis has been given in the following paragraphs:- “ 20. Rather the law is otherwise. In normal and ordinary course the police should always avoid arresting a person and sending him to jail, if it is possible for the police to complete the investigation without his arrest and if every kind of cooperation is provided by the accused to the investigating officer in completing the investigation. It is only in cases of utmost necessity, where the investigation cannot be completed without arresting the person, for instance, a person may be required for recovery of incriminating articles or weapon of offence or for eliciting some information or clue as to his accomplices or any circumstantial evidence, that his arrest may be necessary. Such an arrest may also be necessary if the investigating officer concerned or officer in charge of the police station thinks that presence of the accused will be difficult to procure because of grave and serious nature of crime as the possibility of his absconding or disobeying the process or fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out." 6. Citing the above referred judgment it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that considering the nature of the offence it is seen that custodial interrogation/custodial detention may not be required for the present petitioner who extended her full cooperation during the investigation of the case and is still ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date fixed by the Court to extend her cooperation and her interim bail may be extended as she has no criminal background and the entire incident had happened at the spar of the moment. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioner are not shown as absconder and from the available materials it is seen that she extended her cooperation during the investigation of this case. However, from the Injury Report it is seen that the Page No.# 4/4 victim/informant sustained grievous injury on his neck and accordingly charge- sheet is submitted u/s 118(2)/109 of BNS. Mr. Bortakur further submitted that cooperation during the investigation is seen and after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail also she appeared and extended her cooperation. 8. Considering the matter and submission made by learned counsel for both sides, materials available in the Case Diary and also considering the conduct of the present accused/petitioner who initially appeared before the I/O, cooperated in the investigation, I find that custodial detention may not be required and accordingly the order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 24.07.2025 is hereby made absolute with a direction to the present petitioners to appear before the learned Trial Court below with an application for regular bail which may be considered in accordance with law. 9. Hence, the order of interim bail dated 24.07.2025 is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions. 10. With the above observations, the AB stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant