Gauhati High Court
AB/759/2026 of RAHUL CHAKRABORTY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 27 April 2026
GAHC010071852026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/759/2026 RAHUL CHAKRABORTY S/O LATE MOLOY CHAKRABORTY R/O LAKHICHARAN ROAD, P.O.,P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010071852026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/759/2026
RAHUL CHAKRABORTY
S/O LATE MOLOY CHAKRABORTY
R/O LAKHICHARAN ROAD, P.O.,P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS. M BORA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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 : 28.04.2026 Heard Mr.S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioner, Rahul Chakraborty is seeking Anticipatory Bail apprehending arrest in Page No.# 2/2 connection with an FIR, which is registered as Sribhumi Police Station case No. 500/2025 registered under Sections 318(4)/314/336(3)/316(5)/3(5) of BNS, 2023.
3. Case Diary, as called for, has been received.
4. The previous bail application being AB/41/2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026.
5. The only new ground sought to be projected in the present application is that the petitioner is suffering from heart ailments for which, he is required to go outside the State for medical treatment.
6. I have perused the annexures relating to the medical condition of the petitioner which are of the year 2024 and therefore, they are no longer relevant for the present time and nothing is mentioned as to what treatment the petitioner has undergone in the period of more than 1 and ½ years since then.
7. Having regard to the above, I am of the view that no new ground has been made out for grant of pre-arrest bail.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected.
9. Send back the Case Diary.
10. The Anticipatory Bail petition is disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant