Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24880 (GAU)

BIDYUT MAJUMDAR AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2696/2025 · 2025-12-02

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010252272025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2696/2025 BIDYUT MAJUMDAR AND ANR S/O SHRI BARUN MAJUMDAR R/O H/NO.20, SURAJ PATH JANAKPUR, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, P.S. DISPUR, PIN-781019. 2: SMTI. ALANKRITA PATHAK W/O - SHRI BIDYUT MAJUMDAR R/O - H/No.20 SURAJ PATH JANAKPUR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM P.S - DISPUR PIN - 78101 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR W R MEDHI, MR P TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 03.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. W.R Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner namely, (1) Sri. Bidyut Majumdar and (2) Smti. Alankrita Pathak in connection with Dispur P.S Case No. 891/2025 registered u/s 74/76/79/196(1)(a)/356(2)/318(4)/316(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. It is submitted that the main accused of the case Abdul Karim has already been arrested and the petitioners are cooperating with the investigation by appearing before the I/o and their statements have already been recorded. The petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director of the institute while the informant was studying and the petitioner No. 2, who is the wife of petitioner No. 1, is the Principal of the institute. 4. Upon perusal of the FIR, the allegations against the present petitioners is that on coming to know about the incident involving the main accused, they verbally abused the tea tribe students by making negative comments. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are cooperating with the investigation and also considering the nature of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. It is provided that in the event of their arrest, the above named petitioners shall be released on pre-arrest bail of Rs. 20,000/- each with 1(one) surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority in connection with the aforesaid case. 7. It is further provided that the petitioners shall appear before the I/O within a period of 7(seven) days from the date of this order and cooperate with the investigation of the case. Page No.# 3/3 Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant