Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010104302026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1125/2026 BIDHU BHUSAN NATH S/O LATE BINOD NATH VILL- BILPAR NISKAR, LALPANI, P.S. KATLICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S ALI, MD G HUSSAIN,MR M RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 12.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel applicant and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 482 of the BNSS, is preferred by the applicant, namely, Bidhu Bhusan Nath, who has been apprehending arrest in connection with PRC Case No. 228/2024, pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2 cum Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi Page No.# 2/4 (committal court hereinafter), arising out of Kalticherra PS Case No. 109/2023, under Sections 120(B)/342/325/307 of the IPC added Section 302 of the IPC. 3. It is to be noted here that the above noted case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Rusna Begum Talukdar on 21.06.2023. 3.1. The gravamen of the allegation in the said FIR is that one Belwar @ Jakir Hussain Chaudhury called the husband of the informant over phone to load betel nut at Manipur and accordingly, her husband left home at midnight for loading betel nut along with Anowar Hussain Talukdar and Sabul Ahmed. But, on the next morning, the informant came to know that her husband was brutally assaulted and left on the side of the road with his limbs fastening with rope. 4. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second pre-arrest bail application and the earlier one was dismissed by this Court on 23.08.2023. Mr. Ali further submits that the applicant is on police bail and that after completion of the investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet and now the case is pending before the learned committal court for committal of the case to the court of Sessions. Mr. Ali also submits that since the committal court has no power to grant bail in a case where punishment prescribed is death or imprisonment for life, the applicant apprehends that he may be remanded to the jail hazot. Mr. Ali further submits that the applicant is ready to face the trial and will appear before the learned trial court on each and every date and therefore, it is contended to allow this application. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent has vehemently opposed the application. Referring to the scanned copy of the record, so received from the learned committal court, Mr. Das Page No.# 3/4 submits that the victim, before his death, had made a statement implicating the present applicant with the offence. Mr. Das further submits that the offence is heinous and this is not fit for granting privilege of pre-arrest bail and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the application. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned committal court. 7. It appears that the offence is serious in nature and the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is death or imprisonment for life. It also appears that after completion of the investigation, the IO has submitted charge sheet and now the case is pending for committal to the court of Sessions. However, Mr. Das., learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submits that the case could not be committed as the applicant is not appearing before the learned committal court. 8. Further, as pointed out by Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, drawing attention of this Court to the scanned copy of the record, submits that the materials collected by the police during the course of investigation show complicity of the applicant with the offence alleged in the FIR. It is a fact that since investigation is completed, the custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required. But, this is not the only consideration for granting bail. The nature and gravity of the offence, antecedent of the applicant, possibility of fleeing from justice, the role of the applicant in the offence and likelihood of tampering with evidence and repeating of the offence and standing of the applicant in the society and individual’s right to liberty and also the societal interest are relevant factors, which are also required to be Page No.# 4/4 considered. 9. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, however, referring to an order dated 05.12.2024, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in AB/2830/2024, submits that in the said case the applicant was granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail and since the present applicant is similarly situated with the applicant therein, similar benefit may be granted to the present applicant also. 10. This Court has carefully gone through the order dated 05.12.2024 and it appears that in the said case, pre-arrest bail was granted considering the fact that some of the co-accused have already been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail and in that view of the matter, the present case is factually distinguishable from the said case and as such, to the considered opinion of this Court, the said case is not applicable in all force in the present case and cannot be read as precedent. 11. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 12. The applicant is directed to appear before the learned trial court, within a period of one week from today and to file an application for regular bail and on such application being filed, the learned trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant