Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010077392025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/892/2025 LAKHI KALITA S/O- LATE SARGESWAR KALITA, R/O- VILL- CHOTO BAREGORH, PO- AMBARI, PS ABHAYAURI, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783384 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G CHAMUAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. G. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted interim bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.06.2025 Page No.# 2/4 and in pursuant to the direction of this Court he has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has co-operated in the investigation. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and has submitted that, though, there are sufficient incriminating materials against him, the petitioner has cooperated in the investigation. He further, submits that the investigation is mainly pending for receipt of the forensic laboratory report. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the case diary. 5. On the perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023 has been recorded. Considering the fact that the petitioner has complied with the direction of this Court and has cooperated in the investigation, the interim bail granted to him on 20.06.2025 by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court is hereby made absolute with the condition that he shall continue to cooperate in the investigation of the aforesaid case. 6. It also appears that, on 27.08.2025, this Court had called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon as to why in spite of repeated reminders from the office of the Public Prosecutor to the Investigating Officer for submitting an updated case diary, the same was not collected by the Investigating Officer from the office of the Public Prosecutor. 7. In pursuant to the above direction, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon has submitted a report dated 5 /9/2025. On perusal of the said report, it appears that the Senior Superintendent of Police, on enquiry, found that in the WT messages, received from the office of the Public Prosecutor, no reminder or instructions for collection or return of the case diary could be found. Page No.# 3/4 8. On perusal of the case record, it appears that on 31/7/2025, though, the case diary was available before the Court, it was not up-to-date. Hence, the prosecution side was directed to produce an up-to-date case diary. On 27/08/2025, when the matter was fixed for hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that in spite of repeated reminders to the Investigating Officer by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer had not collected the case diary from the office of the Public Prosecutor, therefore, the case diary could not be updated. 9. On perusal of the copy of the WT message dated 02.08.2025, which was sent to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon, it appears that, it clearly indicates the directions for submitting an up-to-date case diary. It goes without saying that unless the case diary is collected back from the office of the Public Prosecutor by the Investigating Officer, he may not be able to submit an up-to-date case diary. 10. Under Section 192(4) of the BNSS, 2023, the Court may call for the case diary. On receipt of the WT message, such as in this case, the Investigating Officer was under legal obligation to collect the case diary and submit an up-to- date case diary as per the direction of this Court. Not doing so, may amount to the interference with the administration of criminal justice. Apart from the dereliction of duty, it may also amount to disobeying the order of the Court for which the Investigating Officer may even be held in contempt of the Court. 11. There is no dispute that in the instant case, the WT message dated 02.08.2025, calling for an updated case diary, was received by the Investigating Officer. If there was some ambiguity in the WT message, the Investigating Officer could have sought for the clarification from the office of the Public Prosecutor. In this age of information technology, communicating with the office Page No.# 4/4 of the Public Prosecutor by the Investigating Officer may not be a difficult task. However, choosing not to respond to the WT message by the Investigating Officer may amount to dereliction of duty. 12. In view of above discussion, from now onwards, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon is directed to ensure better coordination between the Investigating Officers under his administrative control and the Office of the Public Prosecutor in case of transmitting and collecting of the case diaries by them to and from the Court, through the office of the Public Prosecutor, whenever requisition for same is made in pursuant to an order of the Court. 13. Registry shall furnish a copy of this order to (i) The Director Of Prosecution, Assam, (ii) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon (iii) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for information and doing the needful. 14. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant