Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13052 (GAU)

POMPI BASUMATARY v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1186/2025 · 2025-05-27

Parthivjyoti Saikia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010111622025 2025:GAU-AS:6810 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1186/2025 POMPI BASUMATARY W/O RUPJYOTI BASUMATARY R/O VILL- BELAGURI P.S. RUPAHIHAT DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 28.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for pre-arrest bail in respect of Jamunamukh P.S. Page No.# 2/3 Case No.12/2025. 3. Two sons and one daughter praying that their father, the informant, has died and their names should be mutated in respect of the lands owned by their deceased father. They forged some documents, prepared forged death certificate of their father and they applied online for mutation of their names in the land records. The petitioner being the “Lat Mandal”, i.e., “Land Record Assistant” in the Office of the Circle Officer received the said application and forwarded it to the Circle Officer. 4. Accordingly, the mutation was done. Later on, the informant came to know about it and he filed an objection and the mutation was accordingly cancelled. 5. The cancellation of the mutation was done on the basis of the same Lat Mandal, i.e., the present petitioner. 6. After considering the learned counsel for both the sides and after considering the circumstance under which the occurrence of the case took place, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be detained in custody for the allegation brought in the FIR. 7. Therefore, her application is allowed. 8. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, in connection with Jamunamukh P.S. Case No.12/2025, the petitioner, Pompi Basumatary shall be released on bail of Rs.25,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 9. The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer as and when call for. Page No.# 3/3 10. The present application stand disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant