GAHC010231712025 2025:GAU-AS:15521

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : AB/2529/2025

SRI HEMANTA BORUAH

S/O-CHAITANYA PRASAD BORUAH

R/O- MOHIMABARI GAON, P.O- MOHIMABARI,. P.S- BORHOLA, DIST-

JORHAT, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R CHETRI, MR N MILI,MR U SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

Date : 17-11-2025

applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State respondent.

2. This is an application file under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for granting anticipatory bail to the accused applicant in connection with Borholla P.S. Case No.48/2025, under Section 281/105 of BNS, 2023, read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

3. An FIR has been lodged on 18.09.2025 by one Niren Sonowal alleging that at about 12 to 12:30 PM in front of house of one Mr. Bhabajit Sonowal near B.K. Academy at Bosa Borholla Road, the accused applicant while driving a Bolero vehicle with a very high speed, hit a cycle rode by the eldest brother of the informant, whereby the causing severe injuries to his brother. It was alleged that after hitting the bicycle, the accused applicant fled away from the scene without looking back as to what had happened in the accident. It was alleged that due to the aforesaid accident, the informant’s elder brother expired. It was alleged that the whole incident of accident was caught in the CCTV camera and the same was supplied to the Officer-in-Charge of Borholla Police Station.

4. After the receipt of the FIR, the police has registered the Borholla P.S. Case No. 48/2025 under Section 281/105 of BNS, 2023 read with Section

184 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

the accident occurred without any fault of the accused applicant and out of fear, he fled from the place of occurrence. He submits that the accused applicant was not driving his vehicle in high speed, rather due to some misjudgement, the accident occurred. He submits that due to filing of the FIR, he is apprehending arrest and therefore, filed the instant application for allowing him to go on pre-arrest bail. He submits that the accused applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer, if the accused applicant is allowed to go on a pre-arrest bail.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that involvement of the accused applicant in the alleged incident is totally out of doubt that the whole incident was caught in the CCTV camera. He further submits that the accused applicant instead of helping the injured person or taking him for some medical treatment, fled away from the place of occurrence, which shows his unwarranted conduct when the incident occurred. He submits that there are various incriminating materials against the accused applicant and therefore, he prays that the instant pre-arrest bail application of the accused applicant should be rejected.

7. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court and also heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. After considering the conduct of the accused applicant as well as, prima facie, found his involvement in the hit and run case, this Court is of the considered opinion, at this stage, the accused applicant should not be given the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

8. In view of the aforesaid, prima facie, finding arriving at, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant Order downloaded on 15-01-2026 01:09:36 AM