Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27263 (GAU)

Ms Bullo Yari v. The State of AP and 7 Ors

IA(C)/311/2025 · 2025-12-08

Nelson Sailo

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040020312025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/311/2025 Ms Bullo Yari Daughter of Shri Bullo O, resident of Naharlagun, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 7 Ors represented by the Principal Secretary, Home, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Commissioner of Law and Justices Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Principal Secretary cum LR and EX Officio Director (Prosecution) Age: 0 Occupation : Directorate of Prosecution Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Deputy Director Age: 0 Occupation : Directorate of Prosecution Page No.# 2/3 Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Papum Pare District Yupia Arunachal Pradesh. 6:H R Obing Age: 0 Occupation : Assistant Public Prosecutor CJM Papum Pare District. 7:Tana Tony Age: 0 Occupation : Assistant Public Prosecutor JMFC Papum Pare District. 8:Ms Techi Natu Age: 0 Occupation : Assistant Public Prosecutor JMFC Papum Pare District Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 09.12.2025 Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that by filing this application, the applicant who is the petitioner No. 14 in the main writ petition prays for striking out her name as she is no longer interested to pursue the matter. She, however, submits that petitioner No. 14 has been wrongly mentioned as petitioner No. 15 in the application and that the same should be petitioner No. 14 instead. The prayer is not objected by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. In view of above, the application for striking out the name of petitioner No. 14 as party petitioner in the connected writ petition is hereby allowed. I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant