Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010065222026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/694/2026 GULAM MUSTAK AHMED @ MUNNA AHMED S/O- GUL MAHAMAD ALI, VILL- BORPARA, P.S. BOKO, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS K DAS(VICTIM),MR. P K SAHARIA(VICTIM) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 18.05.2026 Learned Counsel Mr. A. Paramanik is present for the petitioner Gulam Mustak Ahmed @ Munna Ahmed who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Boko PS Case No. 60/2026 under Sections 126(2)/310(2)/118(2)/109(1) of the BNS, 2023, r/w Section 25 (1A) of the Arms Page No.# 2/3 Act. 2. Mr. R.J.Baruah, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor is present for the respondent State. Also heard Mr. P.K.Saharia, learned counsel for the victim. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with his companions, attacked Pranab Mahanta causing injuries on his person. 4. Learned counsel for the victim has submitted an objection and through the objection, it is submitted that the victim has sustained injuries on his head which had to be stitched and the report is marked as Annexure-1 series at Page 41 and page 45 which reveals 9 stitches were removed from the head injury. 5. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has submitted that the victim has sustained several injuries on his head and other parts of his body. There are incriminating materials in the case diary against the present petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the victim has submitted that the petitioner is undergoing trial in a case under section 302 IPC. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also implicated in one more case registered as Boko PS case No. 291/2025, which is also registered under section 27(1) of the Arms Act. The petitioner at present is also registered under Arms Act. 7. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. It is submitted that the co-accused have been granted bail. 8. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has raised objections stating that parity cannot be considered in cases of offences of this nature. I have also scrutinized the case diary. Indeed, there are incriminating materials in the case diary Page No.# 3/3 against the petitioner. The petitioner has other criminal antecedents. 9. In view of my foregoing discussions, at this juncture, it appears that the privilege of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to the petitioner at this stage of investigation. The anticipatory bail petition stands rejected. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant