Pre-arrest bail can be denied when the accused is identified as the primary culprit in a grave offence involving fatal injuries, as custodial interrogation becomes essential for a thorough investigation.

ORDER

Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely,

(i) Abdul Jabbar @ Abdul Jubbar who are apprehending arrest in connection with Dalgaon Police Station Case No. 28/2026 registered under Sections 331(8)/103(1)/118(2)/117(2)/326(g)/191(3) of the BNS.

3. C.D. received. Perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners that the present accused petitioner is the accused no. 1 and he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is a fact that there was a quarrel between the two groups due to a land dispute when the informant side had come to evict them from their land. A civil case is still pending between the parties and with some false and concocted allegations the FIR has been instituted against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner who is stated to be the main culprit of this case who attacked the deceased with a bamboo on his head for which he sustained grievous injury on his head and died out of shock and hemorrhage for such brain injury. He further submitted that from the post mortem examination report also it reveals that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage for the injury sustained by him on his head. He further submitted that from the statements made by all the witnesses, it is seen that the petitioner is the person who attacked the deceased on his head i.e. the vital part and for which he died instantly. Mr. Borthakur has accordingly raised objection and submitted that his custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of investigation.

6. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the materials available in the case diary, it is seen that the present petitioner is the main culprit who attacked the deceased on his vital part of his body for which he died instantly out of head injuries. Considering this aspect of the case, the involvement of the present petitioner vis-à-vis the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that his custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of investigation of the case.

7. In view of this, this Court does not find this case to be a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner and accordingly, this bail petition is rejected.

8. Return the case diary herewith.