Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010117482026 2026:GAU-AS:8335 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1274/2026 SRI MRINAL KALITA AND 3 ORS SON OF SRI BHOGESWAR KALITA 2: SRI DIMPUL KALITA SON OF SRI BHOGESWAR KALITA 3: SRI DHARMENDRA KALITA SON OF SRI BHOGESWAR KALITA 4: SRI BHAGESWAR KALITA SON OF LATE SUBHAN KALITA ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BAMUNDI OJAPARA PO-BAMUNDI P.S-SUALKUCHI DISTRICT-KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, MS J RAJKUMARI,MS. M PATIRI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 11-06-2026 Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the accused- Page No.# 2/3 applicants. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused-applicants in connection with Sualkuchi Police Station Case No. 28/2026 under Sections 296/131/118(1)/115(2)/74/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. An FIR was lodged on 01.06.2026 by one Amarendra Kalita, alleging that while the family members of the informant were discussing about the blockage of road by their neighbours i.e. the accused-applicants, the accused-applicants came and without any provocation, after using certain slang languages attacked them, thereby injuring the informant and his family members. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Sualkuchi Police Station Case No. 28/2026 under the aforementioned sections. 5. Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicants submits that the accused-applicants as well as the informant are next door neighbours and some altercation happened due to blockage of the road by putting a truck load earth there. He submits that there is no such injury that has been alleged in the FIR occurred to any of the persons of the informant’s family. He further submits that both are neighbours and have been peacefully residing in the locality for many years. He submits that custodial detention in the instant case may not be required and therefore, the accused-applicants should be granted pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 3/3 6. Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand, opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 7. This Court after considering the entire facts of the matter, is of the considered opinion that the accused-applicants should be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused-applicants, they shall be released on pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with sureties of like nature to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the conditions that :- (i) The accused-applicants shall appear before the Investigating Authority within a period of 10 (ten) days from passing of this order. (ii) The accused-applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (iii) The accused-applicants shall not try in any way to influence any witnesses that may be involved in the instant case. 8. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant Anticipatory Bail is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant