Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7214 (GAU)

HIRANYA PATHAK v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/312/2025 · 2025-02-17

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010026772025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/312/2025 HIRANYA PATHAK S/O LATE TANU RAM PATHAK R/O HOUSE NO. 6, NARENGI, HOUSING COLONY, P.O. NARENGI P.S. NOONMATI DIST.KAMRUP (M), PIN-781020 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 18.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Page No.# 2/3 Mr. Z. Alom, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Phukon, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 14.02.2025 with some conditions and in pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has co-operated in the investigation. 3. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has produced the Case Diary of Vigilance P.S Case No. 3/2025 and has submitted that the statement of the present petitioner has been recorded by the Investigating Officer. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further submits that as there are materials against the present petitioner in Case Diary he vehemently opposes making the interim bail absolute in this case. 5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the Case Diary produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Since it appears from records that the petitioner has complied with the direction of this Court and has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has co-operated in the investigation. This Court is of the considered opinion that his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 7. Hence, the interim bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 14.02.2025 is hereby made absolute with the condition attached Page No.# 3/3 to the said order remaining intact. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant