Sri Mihir Deb Vs State of Assam

This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, Mihir 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

The learned 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.

¶19

Relying upon the decision of Sagar (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the situation of group assault, the individual roles have to be seen. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner 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

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

Badarpur P.S. Case No. 175/2025, wherein the petitioners are seeking bail. It is submitted that the petitioner does not have previous criminal antecedents.

¶22

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., reported in (2003) 9 SCC 426 . It is further by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and drawing attention of the para 7 of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner was simply a bystander and not at all involved in violence.

¶23

The case diary has been received along with a bail objection.

¶24

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. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that eyewitnesses have stated about seeing him and also attributed assault to him. 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

In the bail objection, the I/O has strongly objected to the grant of

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

bail, contending that the investigation has lent support to the basic allegations and found the involvement of the petitioner 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 the involvement of the petitioner. 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.

¶31

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 petitioner. Accordingly, the interim bail granted earlier vide order dated 14.11.2025 stands vacated and the bail payer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected at this stage.

¶32

Send back the case diary.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Sri Mihir Deb v. State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mihir Deb v. State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raiz Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Rajul Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Salim Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Sahidul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Sri Dibakar Barman Vs Sri Nirmal Talukdar

Jakir Hussain and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam