[1] Heard learned counsel of both sides.

[2] Both the bail applications have arisen out of the common police case, and therefore, same are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

[3] Both the petitioners Junesh Debbarma and Bappi Debbarma have sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with Kamalpur P.S. Case No.22 of 2026, registered under Sections 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 190/ 121(1)/ 121(2)/ 132/ 117(2)/ 109/ 285/ 351(2)/ 324 of BNSS, 2023 and Sections 110/ 112(1) of TTAADC Act.

[4] The allegations, as borne in the FIR, in short, are that on 01.04.2026 at about 1100 hours, while the BJP political party were doing their door-to-door campaign concerning the TTAADC election 2026, about 150 supporters of TIPRA Motha political party unlawfully assembled at West Lambuchara indulging in rioting and blocking the road with the intention to prevent the entry of the BJP candidate for his campaign programme. Upon receiving such information, when the police went there, a section of the mob turned highly violent and aggressive armed with lathis, iron rods, broken beer bottles, bows and arrows, catapults etc. They attacked the police personnel with such weapons and then ultimately injured 20 numbers of police and TSR personnel. Thereafter, they also attacked the vehicle of one sitting MLA at Anandabazar area and caused damage to the same. Accordingly, police lodged an FIR against 21 persons, including the present petitioners.

[5] Mr. Arup Bhawal, learned counsel appearing for both petitioners, submits that there are two different places of occurrence in the present case, one is at Lambuchara and another is at Anandabazar. According to the learned counsel, the FIR has been lodged against a group of persons with an omnibus allegation of attacking the police personnel, and the exact roles of the petitioners were not disclosed. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have no complicity in the alleged offences. Therefore, bail may be granted to them. It is also submitted that, if released on bail, they will cooperate with the investigation.

[6] Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP, however, strongly opposes the prayer and submits that already non-bailable warrants of arrest against both the accused persons have been issued by the learned Magistrate on 08.05.2026 and till date they could not be apprehended. Therefore, in such a situation, they cannot seek the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Learned PP also submits that, in the meantime, the investigation has considerably progressed. Learned PP also relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another, (2024) 12 SCC 382, and the paragraph No.30 as referred by him is reproduced hereunder:

               “30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled to such grant.”

[7] The Court has considered the submissions of both sides. Prima facie, materials are found against both the accused persons regarding such serious allegations of attacking the police authority with the weapons indicated above. Prima facie, materials are also there that they have broken down one government vehicle used by one MLA of that area. An unruly attack upon law enforcing agency cannot be viewed lightly, as it seriously affects public tranquility. Considering all these aggravating materials against both the petitioners, it appears that it is not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail and it is not such an exceptional case to ignore the matter of issuance of warrants of arrest also. Considering all these aspects, both the bail prayers are rejected.

Return the CD along with copy of this order.