JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 438 CrPC for granting prearrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Rajesh Kumar Paul, who has been implicated in connection with Dharmanagar PS Case No. 14/2017 U/s 353/332 and Section 3 of Tripura Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013. 2. Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, firstly, submits that there is no evidence against the petitioner to warrant his custodial interrogation. Secondly, he argues that when the offences charged against the petitioner are punishable only to imprisonment not exceeding three years, which is not grave enough to warrant custodial interrogation. He further submits that the petitioner is a Government servant and serving as Technical Assistant and there is, therefore, no question of his abscondence. Moreover, contends the learned senior counsel, he has already been on bail by the police following the interim bail granted by this Court, but he fully cooperates with the police in the investigation of the case. Finally, he submits that the Apex Court has time and again adopted liberal approach in the matter of granting anticipatory bail which can be seen from the decision in Dr. Rini Johar and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others, AIR 2016 SC 2679 . The submissions of the learned senior counsel is strongly opposed by Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Mr. P.R. Barman, the learned counsel for the victim, assisting the learned Public Prosecutor by contending that the manner in which the petitioner assaulted a public servant while discharging his official duty warrants outright rejection of the bail application. According to them, if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail, a wrong signal will be sent to the medical profession, in particular, and the public in general. They further submit that the provisions of Section 41 CrPC are sufficient to remove the anxiety of the petitioner. 3. On considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The pre-arrest bail application is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, the interim bail stands cancelled. They further submit that the provisions of Section 41 CrPC are sufficient to remove the anxiety of the petitioner. 3. On considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The pre-arrest bail application is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, the interim bail stands cancelled. It is, however, made clear that the police while dealing with the petitioner shall keep in mind that the offences charged against the petitioner are punishable only with imprisonment not exceeding three years with fine and shall follow the procedures laid by law in Sections 41, 41A, 41B and 41D, CrPC.