Gauhati High Court
AB/2557/2026 of SRI RUBUL SONOWAL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 7 October 2026
GAHC010224662026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2557/2026 SRI RUBUL SONOWAL S/O - SRI JOY RAM SONOWAL, RESIDENT OF - GAGALDUBI, BALIGAON P.S - BOGINADI, DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE
GAHC010224662026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2557/2026
SRI RUBUL SONOWAL
S/O - SRI JOY RAM SONOWAL, RESIDENT OF - GAGALDUBI, BALIGAON P.S
- BOGINADI, DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G G GOGOI, A TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 08.10.2026
Heard Mr. GG Gogoi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. DP Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre arrest bail in connection with Boginodi P.S. Case No. 90/2026 corresponding to GR Case No. 790/2026 registered under Sections 115(2)/308(2)/324(2)/351(2) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged by the informant stating inter alia that when his truck was carrying woods from Majuli to Lakhimpur, the petitioner along with others stopped the vehicle and snatched away the documents from the driver. He also stated that when he was informed about the incident, he along with his wife visited the place of occurrence and saw that his vehicle was damaged and that with the help of the police, he returned from the place of occurrence.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an agreement between the parties and that the informant is stated to have lodged the FIR on a misunderstanding
4. Mr. DP Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand submits that the cognizable offence is writ large in the FIR against the petitioner.
5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the settlement reached between the parties and there being no injuries stated to have been sustained by the driver, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority under the following conditions:
i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of the order.
ii) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when called for.
iii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case.
iii) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority.
6. Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant