[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 6 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010249512025
2026:GAU-AS:1630
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2664/2025
SUMIT DEB AND 8 ORS.
SON OF SUBHASH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR, BADARPUR
DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI
2: SAURAV DEB
SON OF SANTUSH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MUGRAPUR BADARPUR
DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI
3: SANTUSH DEB
SON OF LATE SUDHIR DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR
BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI
4: SUBRATA DEB
SON OF SANTUSH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR
DISTRICT SRIBHUMI
5: RITA RANI DEB
WIFE OF SANTUSH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR
DISTRICT SRIBHUMI
6: ARCHANA RANI DEB
WIFE OF SUBASH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR
DISTRICT SRIBHUMI
7: PAPPU DEB
SON OF SUBASH DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUGRAPUR BADARPUR
DISTRICT SRIBHUMI
8: SHILPI DEB
WIFE OF LATE ASHIT RANJAN DEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUTTAPUR
BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI
9: RAJ DEB
SON OF LATE ASHIT RANJAN DEB
Page No.# 2/5
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DUTTAPUR BADARPUR DISTRICT SRIBHUM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR P BORA,MS. M CHOUDHURY,MR. S
DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. S. CHANDA(INFORMANT),MS. U
NANDA(INFORMANT),MS. J GHOSH(INFORMANT),MR. S C BISWAS (INFORMANT)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
Date : 06.02.2026
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta,
learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned
counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2.
2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioners,
namely, (i) Sumit Deb (ii) Saurav Deb (iii) Santush Deb (iv) Subrata
Deb (v) Rita Rani Deb (vi) Archana Rani Deb (vii) Pappu Deb (viii)
Shilpi Deb (ix) Raj Deb, apprehending arrest in connection with
Badarpur P.S. Case No. 175/2025 under Section
189(2)/191(2)/191(3)/190/329(3)/296/74/118(2)/117(2)/109/103(2) of
BNS, 2023.
Page No.# 3/5
3. The gist of the allegations in the FIR is about the accused persons
attacking the members of the informant's side in a group, causing serious
assault, grievous injuries and death of one person.
4. The learned Senior counsel has placed a recent decision of the
Supreme Court in Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1370
to drive home the point regarding the aspect of parity in bail petition and
that the role of the individual accused has to be seen. It is also submitted
that the specific role of if any of petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 may also be seen.
5. Relying upon the decision of Sagar (supra), the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the situation of group
assault, the individual roles have to be seen. The learned Senior counsel for
the petitioners submits that the unfortunate incident arose out of a quarrel
pertaining to ancestral property and drawing attention to FIR dated 03-10-
2025, lodged by the petitioners side, alleging assault and causing of injuries
by the members of the other side, whereupon Badarpur P.S. Case No. 174
of 2025 was registered. The date of the alleged incident is stated to be 02-
10-2025. It is stated that on 04-10-2025, the present FIR came to be filed,
alleging large scale assault and causing of grievous injuries and death of
one person named Sanjib Ghosh. It is submitted that this FIR was
registered into Badarpur P.S. Case No. 175/2025, wherein the petitioners
are seeking bail. It is submitted that the petitioners do not have previous
criminal antecedents.
6. It is also submitted that the cross case is being investigated by
another I/O, which is contrary to the principles laid down in various
decisions, with regard to that State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (dead) & Ors.,
Page No.# 4/5
reported in (2003) 9 SCC 426.
7. The case diary has been received along with a bail objection.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that investigation
has revealed sufficient incriminating materials and that, the PM report is
available, which reveals the death due to blunt force trauma and that the
brain matter was also visible. It is submitted that eyewitnesses have been
implicated in their statements before police and Magistrate. It is submitted
by the prosecution, supported by the learned counsel for the informant,
that it is not a fit case to grant interim bail.
9. The learned counsel for the informant submits that this was a case
of pre-planned murder and the victim was a neighbour who was brutally
killed.
10. In the bail objection, the I/O has strongly objected to the grant of
bail, contending that the investigation has lent support to the basic
allegations and found the involvement of the petitioners in acts of causing
serious violence upon the victims, resulting in grievous injuries and death of
one victim who happened to be a neighboring person.
11. The post-mortem report indicates blunt force injuries on the head.
The victim was allegedly hit by a stick and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that the assault was so severe that even brain matter
had come out.
12 The same principle is undoubtedly applicable at the stage of trial and
to some extent even at the stage of bail. However, the materials indicate
Page No.# 5/5
the involvement of the petitioners. Therefore, this judgment does not help
the petitioner's side at this stage. The foresaid procedural irregularity, if
any, should be addressed for the further/remaining investigations.
13. I have perused the contention of the bail objection and the materials
including the photographs annexed and the medical report - I agreed with
the prosecution that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioners. Accordingly, the interim bail granted earlier vide order dated
12.11.2025 stands vacated and the bail payer of the petitioner for
anticipatory bail stands rejected at this stage.
14. Send back the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
