Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010121962026 2026:GAU-AS:9084 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1317/2026 PIKLU ROY S/O LATE SWAPAN KUMAR ROY, R/O WARD NO. 4, BANAMALI, P.O. P.S. KARIMGANJ, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788710. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, F. SHAHIN(INFORMANT),P SINGH(INFORMANT),N HASAN(INFORMANT),MR A HUSSAIN(INFORMANT),MR. B K SEN(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, for granting pre- Page No.# 2/3 arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Sribhumi P.S. Case No. 111/2026, under Sections 329(4)/189(2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/304 of BNS, 2023 3. The informant of the instant case one Arijit Dey lodged a written FIR on 18.05.2026, before the Officer-in-Charge, Sribhumi P.S. alleging inter alia that on 16.05.2026 at around 10:30 to 11:00 pm, when he and his associate closed their shop and came downstairs, a group of persons allegedly tried to assassinate them. It was further alleged that due to the attack, both of them sustained severe injuries and were recovered by the patrolling squad of Sribhumi police. They received preliminary treatment from Karimganj Civil Hospital. It was also alleged that the accused snatched gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 2 lakhs from them. On receipt of the FIR, the I/O made a G.D.E. entry vide G.D.E. No. 07 dated 18.05.2026 and after conducting an enquiry, he forwarded the case to the Officer In charge on 19.05.2026. On receipt of the case, the Officer In charge, Sribhumi P.S. registered the same on 19.05.2026 vide Sribhumi P.S. Case No. 111/2026, under Section 329(4)/189(2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/304 of BNS and started investigation. 4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the incident relates to a street fight and the matter has been blown out of proportion and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the role Page No.# 3/3 of the petitioner has been clearly established in the CCTV footages which has recorded the entire incident. 6. Further perusal of the medical report suggest that one of the victims suffered fracture on his head which is a grievous injury. It is further submitted that the absence of the petitioner alongwith other co-accused had created terror in the minds of the victims who were beaten mercilessly by the petitioner and co-accused persons. 7. The Case Diary has been perused. 8. It appears that one of the injured persons have suffered serious injuries to his eyes which resulted in breakage of ocular bone requiring surgery. It also appears that the petitioner have been implicated by other witnesses including the injured persons. 9. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, this is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. 11. Petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant