THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA Date : 01.08.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned APP appearing for the State. By this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Sonai PS Case No. 217/2019 under Sections 341/ 148/149/ 326/307 IPC. The learned APP has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioners along with a group had assaulted several persons of the informants’ side and grievously injured one Islam Udin Mazumdar, who had suffered both grievous and simple injury including compound fracture and amputation of right thumb. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are mason by profession and petitioner no.3 is working as a painter and that they were working in the State of Manipur since the year 2018 and on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.08.2019, they were in Manipur. It is also submitted that there is a long pending land dispute between two parties and accordingly concocted story was created by falsely implicating the petitioners in connection with the said case. On a perusal of the FIR, it appears that the incident occurred at 4:00 PM on 11.08.2019 and as per the rough sketch map of the place of occurrence, the informant’s elder brother was attacked on a public road and several witnesses Page No.# 3/3 have implicated the present petitioners of participating in the assault. Considering the gravity of the offence where has been six injuries is found in medical report, which is suffered by the injured person and as per the FIR, eleven accused has participated in the assault of the elder brother of the informant in which the injured had suffered compound fracture and computation of his right thumb which took place in broad daylight, in the interest of investigation, the Court is not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Hence, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant