Page No.# 1/22 GAHC010063272025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/11/2025 RIMLY GOGOI SAIKIA D/O- MR. KHAGEN GOGOI, R/O- BIRINASAYEK, GARIKURI VILLAGE, TITABAR-785630. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:MOHANLAL MEENA THE THEN SUPERINTENDENTOF POLICE JORHAT THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JORHAT ATILAGAON JORHAT- 7B5OO1 3:KAKOLI PATGIRI SUB.DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER TITABAR JORHAT- 785630 4:LAKSHMAN KUMAR DAS OFFICER-IN.CHARGE TITABAR POLICE STATION TITABAR JORHAT 785630 5:MIRAJ DOLEY CASE INVESTIGATING OFFICER (TITABAR PS CASE NO. 13212023) TITABAR POLICE STATION TITABAR JORHAT- 785630 6:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Page No.# 2/22 ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781OO7. 7:SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE JORHAT ATILAGAON JORHAT- 785OO Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. ARIF JWADDER, FARIDUL AMIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Date : 19-09-2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (C.A.V.) (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Jwadder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent no. 1. 2) As notice has not been issued on the respondent nos. 2 to 5, who are the police personnel, it would be appropriate to strike-out their names from the array of respondents. 3) Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- a. That on 22.12.2023, the brother of the petitioner, namely, ‘Y’ (name masked), was picked up by police personnel from Titabar Police Station and interrogated in connection with a bomb blast case which had occurred on 14.12.2023, at Lichubari in Jorhat, which was initially registered under Jorhat P.S. G.D.E. No. 43 dated 14.12.2023, and Page No.# 3/22 subsequently registered as Jorhat P.S. Case No. 555/2023, under Sections 120B/121/121A/ 124A/307 IPC, read with Sections 10/13 of the U.A.(P) Act, read with Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act and read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The police released ‘Y’ in the intervening night of 22.12.2023 and 23.12.2023. Thereafter, he was again picked up on 23.12.2023 and he was released in the intervening night of 23.12.2023 and 24.12.2023. He was again picked up on 24.12.2023, and released in the intervening night of 24.12.2023 and 25.12.2023. He was again picked up on 25.12.2023 and released at 2.30 am on 25.12.2023. b. It is alleged that the parents of the petitioner found ‘Y’ in a weak condition in comparison to other days and he was carrying tubes of ointment provided by the police. It is alleged that after putting his dead on the lap of his mother ‘Y’ had complained of beating by the police and started crying and said “Mother, the police have badly beaten me up and I can no longer bear it. Today I was told by the Superintendent of Police at gunpoint that if I do not confess to being involved in the Jorhat bomb blast case, he will shoot me to death tomorrow.” It is alleged that ‘Y’ could not eat properly and her mother made him sleep. c. It is alleged that in the morning, her mother did not find ‘Y’ in his room and when he could not be found by both parents, her father had lodged an FIR with Madhopur Police Outpost, but the same was not registered. After coming from Madhopur Police Station, while searching here and there, the dead body of the deceased ‘Y’ was found hanging from a branch of a tree in the tea-garden behind the house of the Page No.# 4/22 petitioner’s parental home. Accordingly, on F.I.R. being lodged by the petitioner, Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2023, under Sections 306/323/506 IPC was registered. d. It has been alleged that the deceased was taken into custody by police on 22.12.2023, 23.12.2023, 24.12.2023 and 25.12.2023 and was always handed over to his parents at home after midnight by Titabar Police led by Officer-in-Charge and the mother of the deceased was made to sign a document when he was handed over, which was not done in the intervening night of 25.12.2023 and 26.12.2023. It is also alleged that every day the deceased had narrated torture and physical beating to his parents and every day the deceased was given tubes of ointment. It is alleged that medical examination slips were given on 23.12.2023 and 24.12.2023 at Titabar Sub-Divisional Civil Hospital and that in the medical examination slip of 23.12.2023, the name of the deceased was wrongly written as ‘A’ (name masked). It is also alleged that the medical examination of ‘Y’ was done on 24.12.2023 at 7.28 pm., but he was released only after midnight and that medical examination of the deceased was not done on 25.12.2023. e. It has been stated that the post mortem examination report of the deceased clearly revealed following ante mortem injuries caused by blunt force impact, viz., (i) bruise bluish black in colour present over the left buttock of size measuring 9 cm X 5 cm, and (ii) bruise bluish black in colour present over the right buttock of size measuring 14 cm X 9 cm. f. It has been stated that the investigation was defective and the Page No.# 5/22 statement of the doctors who had examined the deceased and who had conducted the post mortem were not recorded. The investigating officer did not take into consideration the post mortem report; other persons named in statement of other co-accused and informants were not interrogated. g. It is alleged that custodial torture of the deceased was done at the Sadar Police Station and official residence of the then Superintendent of Police, Jorhat. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police personnel, while dropping back ‘Y’ at his home, used to provide him with ointment tube for pain suffered by ‘Y’. h. It has been, thus, stated that the petitioner’s brother, unable to withstand police brutality and humiliation, had committed suicide in the morning of 26.12.2023. i. It has also been stated that ‘Y’ was called by the police from Madhopur Police Outpost on 21.12.2023, but he was released after two hours. It has also been stated that the personnel had searched the house of the deceased and seized the mobile of the mother of the deceased and some job related documents, but no seizure list was provided. It is also alleged that the Officer-In-Charge of Titabar P.S. offered a sum of Rs.5,000/- for cremation, which was refused by the family. j. It has been stated that the deceased was interested in getting a job at the police and para-military force and had applied for various jobs and had also appeared in interviews and he was also physically training himself for fitness for several years. It was stated that the deceased Page No.# 6/22 had secured a job in Numaligarh Refinery and on 16.12.2023, he was medically examined by S.D.M.O. (Ayur), Titabar BPHC, Jorhat for medical fitness, which was to be submitted to the employer. 4) It was submitted that on 24.12.2023, the mother of ‘Y’ had received threatening from someone and therefore, ‘Y’ had informed the Officer- in-Charge of Titabar P.S. about the same. But though it is shown that the deceased was taken into protective custody on 24.12.2023, but there is no record of the same and the complaint was not investigated. 5) The further case of the petitioner is that the investigation was first conducted by Sub-Inspector Nirupama Das, who had recorded the statement of some witnesses. Thereafter, Inspector Miraj Doley took up the investigation as the second I.O. of the case, though he was an accused. The Final Form/Report No. 12/2024 dated 19.09.2024, was thereafter, submitted by Inspector Lakshman Kumar Das, the Officer-in-Charge of Titabar P.S., who again is an accused and did not do any investigation himself. It was submitted that the petitioner had submitted a protest petition before the learned Court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Titabar, which was allowed vide order dated 03.12.2024 and re-investigation of the case was ordered. It has been submitted that the change of Investigating Officer was not informed to the petitioner/informant. 6) It was submitted that while ordering re-investigation vide order dated 03.12.2024, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Titabar had opined that considering the rank and file of the accused persons in the case, and for ensuring public confidence, accountability and transparency, the case must be re-investigated by a senior ranked police officer who will be selected by the then Superintendent of Police, Jorhat. Thereafter, the investigation was Page No.# 7/22 handed over to Subhrajyoti Bora, the then Superintendent of Police, Sivasagar. It has been submitted that once again, the I.O. had submitted a Final Form/Report, exonerating the police personnel. On coming to know about it, the petitioner had filed a protest petition, which was numbered as petition no. 209/2025, in connection with Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2023. Accordingly, vide order dated 10.07.2025, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, a complaint case was ordered to be registered. 7) It has been stated that the statement of the petitioner and her mother had been recorded by the Police Accountability Commission in Suo Motu Case No. 181/2023. However, it is alleged that their statement and statement of the witnesses were not properly recorded. Moreover, they were made to sign the statements, which were written in English. 8) It was stated that the investigation was shoddy and there were material deficiencies during investigation and material piece of evidence was overlooked and no arrest had been made in the case. 9) Accordingly, it has been prayed that an appropriate writ be issued directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation of the Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2023 and prosecute the guilty police officers who were involved in custodial torture, leading to the alleged suicide by the brother of the petitioner; to issue appropriate order to monitoring/ supervision of the investigation by a Judge of this Court; to direct the State respondent to award adequate compensation to the family of the deceased for violating fundamental and human rights of the deceased and his family members. 10) The learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of his submissions, has referred to the grounds for approaching this Court. It has been Page No.# 8/22 submitted that this was a case of violation of human rights of the deceased and exerting of police pressure to the deceased to self-implicate himself in Jorhat P.S. Case No. 555/2023. The accused in the case were high ranking police officers and therefore, there are material deficiencies in the manner of investigation and important piece of evidence have been intentionally overlooked without being considered, including bruise marks on both buttocks and other injuries, which are revealed in the post mortem report. Though the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Titabar had ordered that a senior ranking police officer do the investigation, but investigation was done by Superintendent of Police of another district, who was of equal rank to the Superintendent of Police, Jorhat, who was one of the prime accused. The family of the deceased have lost faith on the investigation done by the Assam Police, as investigation was not done in a free and fair manner; and that there is every chance that available evidence would be destroyed. 11) In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the following cases, viz., (i) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, (ii) R.S. Sodhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) Supp (1) SCC 143, (iii) Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578. 12) Per contra, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that the materials available on record reveals that the petitioner was not present at her parental house between 21.12.2023 and morning of 26.12.2023 and therefore, the narratives mentioned in the writ petition, including conversation that is projected to have transpired between the deceased and his mother is merely a hearsay statement of the petitioner. 13) It has been submitted that in the intervening night of 25.12.2023 and 26.12.2023, ‘Y’ was handed over to his mother and a Page No.# 9/22 photograph of the said ‘Y’, with his mother has been captured. It has been submitted that on every day, ‘Y’ was medically examined and thereafter, dropped back at home, and as per medical report, no injury was found on him. It was submitted that on 26.12.2023, ‘Y’ was dropped back at home at 1:10 am, which is available at the timeline in the photograph taken at that time. Hence, it was submitted that the injuries in the body of ‘Y’, as reported in the post mortem report, must have been after he was dropped back at his home and not within the knowledge of the police authorities. Relying on the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no. 7, as well as affidavit filed by the respondent no. 7 to bring the post mortem report and FSL report on record, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate has denied all the allegations of inflicting of any custodial torture by the police. 14) It was submitted that as per the post mortem report, this was a case of suicidal hanging. It was further submitted that the petitioner is alleging that the police had handed over about 5 (five) tubes of ointments to ‘Y’ while dropping him. It is submitted that the ointment seen in the photograph annexed to the writ petition is five tubes of same ointment, which is mosquito repellant and not used for treatment of any medical condition. 15) It was submitted that as per the case diary, the mobile of the petitioner was seized and not of his mother. 16) It was submitted that vide order dated 01.01.2024, passed in the name of the Governor of Assam by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home and Political Department, the then Chairman, Assam Board of Revenue, was directed to make and enquiry and to submit a report within 30 (thirty) days. It has been submitted that in course of the said enquiry, due to some technical reasons, the CCTV footage of the interrogation of the deceased on 24.12.2024, Page No.# 10/22 at Titabar Police Station could not be produced. However, thereafter, the technical experts could retrieve the video recording and the same has been produced in a pen-drive before the Court. Accordingly, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate has handed over four pen-drives containing the following, viz., (i) video recording of inquest and post-mortem examination (marked as 1); (ii) CCTV footage of interrogation (marked as 2 and 3); CCTV footage of interrogation at Jorhat P.S. (marked as 4); and CCTV of interrogation in Titabar P.S. on 25.12.2023 and 26.12.2023. 17) In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigation by the Investigating Officers was shoddy and aimed to exonerate the police personnel, including the Superintendent of Police, Jorhat. It was submitted that an independent investigation was not conducted in accordance with the directions contained in various decisions of the Supreme Court of India. 18) Considered the materials available in the writ petition, affidavit- in-opposition by respondent no.7 and affidavit filed by respondent no. 7 to bring the postmortem report and FSL report on record in terms of order dated 13.06.2025. Also considered the photocopy of the case diary of Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2024 and Jorhat P.S. Case No. 555/2023 (arising out of Jorhat P.S. G.D.E. No. 43 dated 14.12.2023). Also viewed the contents of the four pen- drives provided by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, containing (i) video recording of inquest and post-mortem examination (marked as 1); (ii) CCTV footage of interrogation (marked as 2 and 3); CCTV footage of interrogation at Jorhat P.S. (marked as 4); and CCTV of interrogation in Titabar P.S. on 25.12.2023 and 26.12.2023. 19) The grievance of the petitioner is that several investigation Page No.# 11/22 officers have been changed in connection with the investigation of Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2023, without the informant/ complainant being informed about the change of I.O. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any legal provision of any case citation, where it has been laid down that it is mandatory for the police to inform the informant/ complainant about the change of Investigating Officer. 20) It is noticed that after the investigation of Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2023, a final form was submitted against the accused persons by the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, vide order dated 12.11.2023, recorded regarding the submission of the final form against the accused persons and issued notice to the informant so show cause as to why the Final Report should not be accepted. On the next date fixed, i.e. on 03.12.2024, the informant, i.e. the writ petitioner had appeared and filed a protest petition, which was numbered as petition no. 230/2024. The learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, by order dated 03.12.2024, took note of the projection made by the petitioner as well as material available on record, including the injuries reported in the postmortem report and allowed the protest petition. The relevant observation made by the said learned Court in the order dated 03.12.2024, is as follows:- According to Bhagwat Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police AIR 1985 SC 1285, this Court has three options i.e. (i) accept the report and drop the proceeding or (ii) disagree with the report and taking the view that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding to take cognizance of offense and issue process or (iii) may direct further Investigation to be made by the I.0. of this case. It is to be reminded that the fair Investigation only can ensure fair trial, which is constitutional right, hence it is solemn duty of the I.0. to conduct fair and just investigation and in a democratic set-up if the cry of the victim is not fairly heard, then the whole façade of democratic polity will collapse. In this case, the importance of perception of justice is also very critical as accused persons are senior police officers having administrative control over the Investigating Officer who actually dent the Page No.# 12/22 perception of fair investigation. It is common principle that justice must not only be done must also have been seen to be done, which clearly indicates the importance of fairness, transparency and public confidence in the investigation of any case and if any investigation is not done with visible fairness then the public trust in the police administration will surely deteriorate leading to social instability. Therefore, considering the protest petition, FIR, other documents, submissions of Ld. Counsel of Informant and rank and file of the accused persons in this case, this Court is of the opinion that ensuring public confidence, accountability, transparency, this case must be re-investigated by a senior police personnel who will be selected by the present Superintendent of Police, Jorhat and who shall investigate the case without fair and favor following the constitutional morality and oath which was taken at the time of joining the service. Accordingly, the petition no. 220/24 Is allowed and disposed of accordingly. The Case Diary along with a copy of this order is to be furnished to the S.P., Jorhat through proper channel for his immediate action. Inform all concerned accordingly.” 21) In the writ petition, it is projected that the Police Accountability Commission, Assam took up the matter by registering Suo Motu Case No. 181/2023. The said Commission had examined the petitioner and mother. Their statements are annexed in this writ petition as “Annexure-10 (Colly)”. However, in the writ petition, the petitioner has expressed her grievance that the Commission did not record the statement of the petitioner and her mother properly and they were made to sign their statement recorded in English. The said statement by the petitioner is found to be without any merit because the petitioner and her mother have both signed their statement recorded by the Commission in English and their respective statement contains the endorsement by the Commission regarding “RO&AC” (“read over and accepted to be correct” in short). The petitioner has sworn the affidavit filed in support of the statements made in this writ petition in English. Moreover, the Notary before whom the affidavit filed in support of the statements made in this writ petition Page No.# 13/22 has been sworn, has made an endorsement to the effect that – “Solemnly affirmed and declared before me this day, I certify that I read over explained the contents to the declarant and that the declarant seemed perfectly to understand them.” Therefore, the contention of the petitioner has to be discarded. From the statements made in the writ petition an impression is gathered that the petitioner and her mother have abandoned the proceedings before the Police Accountability Commission, Assam. 22) Coming to the allegations that the police had provided ‘Y’ with five tubes of medicines. In the said context, by referring to the photograph of the tubes (at pp.43 of the writ petition), the learned Senior Govt. Advocate has successfully demonstrated that those tubes were of a particular brand of mosquito repellant and is therefore, not a medicine and therefore, no doctor would provide ‘Y’ for treatment of any medical condition. Therefore, the mere fact that ‘Y’ may have brought home 5 tubes of mosquito repellant, but that does not throw any light to the issue involved in this writ petition. 23) Be that as it may, the case diary reveals pursuant to the order dated 03.12.2024, passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, the Inspector General of Police (ER), Assam, vide order under Memo No. JHT/V/29/2024 dated 05.12.2024, directed that the further investigation be carried out by Shri Subhrajyoti Bora, Superintendent of Police, Sivasagar. Accordingly, upon completion of investigation, the said Investigating Officer had submitted the Final Form/Report on 30.04.2025, which was forwarded to the Court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, thereby exonerating the accused persons. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner, who had appeared before the said learned Court and had filed her protest petition, which was numbered as petition no. 209/2025, thereby raising objection in respect of Page No.# 14/22 the investigation carried out in the case. 24) The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, vide order dated 10.07.2025, had recorded that the objection by the petitioner was on the ground that the I.O. had not examined sufficient witnesses during investigation and submitted the final report without any proper basis and the petitioner had prayed to take cognizance against the accused persons. Accordingly, the said learned Court, having found that the petitioner (i.e. the informant/ complainant) had raised serious accusation against the accused persons, ordered registration of a complaint case and further directed that the record of Titabar P.S. Case No. 133/2023, be tagged with the complaint case. 25) The learned counsel for the petitioner, on a query of the Court, has submitted that the petitioner is yet to take steps in the said complaint case and therefore, the case had not progressed. 26) On a perusal of the materials available on the record, the Court finds that there are materials to show that on the morning of 26.12.2023, the deceased ‘Y’ was dropped at his residence and the State has projected that at the time of his release, his photograph was taken along with his mother at the location of their house. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that he is in a position to show that the location where ‘Y’ was dropped back was his house. Thereafter, in the morning he was found missing and later on, his family members found his dead body hanging from a tree in the Tea Garden near their residence. 27) As per the case diary, read with the statement of Lakshman Kr. Das, Officer-In-Charge of Titabar P.S. under section 161 Cr.P.C., on 24.12.2023, the Officer-In-Charge of Titabar Police Station had received a phone call from Page No.# 15/22 the petitioner [from mother of ‘Y’ mobile no.70868-20423] that during daytime at around 1.00 pm, one unknown person came to the house of the mother of the deceased and enquired about the whereabouts of ‘Y’ and told that hiding in police station would not help ‘Y’. Therefore, ‘Y’ told the Officer-In-Charge of Titabar Police Station that he did not want to stay at his house and therefore, the Officer-In-Charge of Titabar Police Station had brought ‘Y’ to the police station to keep him in safe custody. Thereafter, on 24.12.2023, ‘Y’ was again examined by the police and taken for his medical examination at 7:28 pm and he was dropped and handed over to his mother at 2:45 am on 25.12.2023. On 26.12.2023, ‘Y’ was again brought to Titabar Police Station and he along with few others were interrogated and then allowed to go back after their medical examination at 12:30 am on 26.12.2023. As per the medical examination report, there were no external injuries at the time of examination and then ‘Y’ was dropped at his home at 1:15 am on 26.12.2023 and he was photographed with his mother. On 26.12.2023, at about 9:00 am, information was received at the Titabar P.S. that ‘Y’ was missing from his home. After sometime, further information was received that he was found hanging from a tree at the Tea Garden at the backside of his house. The Officer-In-Charge of Titabar P.S. along with S.D.P.O. went to the place of occurrence, by which time the In-Charge of Madhopur Out Post had already reached the place of occurrence. 28) Thereafter, the inquest was performed by the Circle Officer- cum- Executive Magistrate, Titabar, who as per the Inquest Report prepared by her, had visited the place of occurrence at about 11.00 am on 26.12.2023. She had gone after receiving telephonic order from the S.D.O., Titabar and Additional Deputy Commissioner (M), Jorhat. As per the inquest report, the following injury marks were seen, viz., (i) dry black spotted outer injury Page No.# 16/22 (bruises) on the abdomen; and (ii) dry black spotted outer injury (bruises) on the buttocks. The body was seen hanging from a Pipal tree with a rope, but the body (feet) was touching the ground. The Circle Officer- cum- Executive Magistrate, Titabar had examined four witnesses, including three family members and the Gaon Pradhan. It was observed in the Inquest Report that the actual cause of death may be ascertained during post mortem examination of the dead body. 29) The post-mortem examination was conducted at Jorhat Medical College and later on the dead body was handed over to the family. 30) As per the contents of the post-mortem report, the dead body had the following injury marks, being (i) bruise bluish black in colour present over the left buttock of size measuring 9 cm X 5 cm; (ii) bruise bluish black in colour present over the right buttock of size measuring 14 cm X 9 cm. The ligature mark on neck is stated as “A faint, oblique, non-continuous ligature mark of size 33 cm X 2 cm present over both front and sides of the neck, high up above the level of thyroid cartilage. The site of non-continuity, i.e. the knot of the ligature was present over the left mastoid. Externally, the ligature mark was dry, depressed, light brown and parchmentized. Externally, the ligature mark was dry, pale and glistening. Surrounding neck tissues found healthy and intact.” 31) As per the Final Opinion as to the cause of death, prepared on 27.06.2024 by the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Science, Jorhat Medical College, Jorhat, by referring to the Madhopur Out Post G.D.E. No. 367 dated 26.12.2023, it was stated that “Death was due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging, which was suicidal in nature.” Moreover, it was also mentioned that no poison were detected in the three exhibits referred therein. Page No.# 17/22 32) Thus, as per the final post-mortem report, the cause of death was ante-mortem suicidal hanging. 33) It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that ‘Y’ was picked up from his home and taken to Police Guest House for interrogation and questioned the said process adopted by the Jorhat Police, led by the Superintendent of Police, Jorhat. The mere fact that ‘Y’ was taken to Police Guest House on 21.12.2023, at 8:00 pm to Police Guest House, Jorhat and interrogated by the police on 21.12.2023 in connection with Jorhat P.S. Case No. 555/2023, which was the case related to bomb blast and seizure of his mobile on 21.12.2023 is concerned, the same is found to be recorded in the case diary of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 555/2023. It is further recorded in the case diary that ‘Y’ was taken for being dropped to his house after conducting his medical examination. There appears to be no adverse medical opinion available suggesting that there were any visible marks to suggest that ‘Y’ was tortured by the police on 21.12.2023. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate had responded by stating that the police authorities were then investigating a serious crime relating to bomb blast. Therefore, certain amount of discretion was maintained as the police had suspected hand of a terrorist group in the bomb blast and the police had also suspected ‘Y’ to be a linkman to one such group. 34) It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was a huge time-gap between the medical examination of ‘Y’, which was conducted at 12:30 am on 26.12.2023 and dropping of ‘Y’ at his house at 1:15 am on 26.12.2023. In this regard, from the inquest report, it is seen that the deceased was a resident of Garikuri Gaon, but the Court has not been informed about the distance between the Sub-Divisional Civil Hospital, Titabar, where the medical examination of ‘Y’ was done and his Page No.# 18/22 village. Without commenting on its accuracy, but as per the “google maps” application, the distance is 20 km and approximate time to cover the said distance by vehicle is 33 minutes, which may again depend on the then existing road condition. Therefore, the time-gap in dropping ‘Y’ at his home is not questionable by reason of extraordinary delay, as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 35) The records reveal that pursuant to notification dated 01.01.2024, issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home and Political Department, the then Chairman, Assam Board of Revenue had conducted his report had been submitted. However, the date of submission of the report to the competent authority is not mentioned in the report. While not conclusively giving any opinion as to the cause of death of ‘Y’, a recommendation has been made for payment of compensation to the family of the deceased ‘Y’. The conclusions of the said enquiry are as follows:- “11. Conclusion 11.1. Late Dipankar Gogoi was picked up for interrogation coricerning the grenade blast on 14th December 2023 and his family was well aware that he was taken by Police and had been dropped back every day late in the night. The family was also aware of his past association with ULFA. The police investigation and subsequent arrests made and the further investigation in view of the information provided by Dipankar Gogoi [as per Police], points to active involvement of Dipankar Gogoi in the incident and other related anti-establishment activities. 11.2. The apprehensions regarding the decision not to arrest Dipankar Gogoi, as highlighted by SP Jorhat and IO SDPO Titabar, merit serious consideration. Their assertion is grounded in the strategic understanding that arresting Dipankar Gogoi could have potentially alerted the two individuals involved in the grenade blast, jeopardizing their subsequent appropriation. The decision not to arrest him appears to have been driven by a calculated approach to secure the successful arrest of the accused individuals. 11.3. Upon careful examination of statements and documents gathered during the investigation, the family's assertions of torture and injuries lack conclusive evidence. Notably, Dipankar Gogoi was observed having food in the Jorhat Thana on the evening Page No.# 19/22 of December 25, 2023. His movement within the police station, shifting from one room to another, and exiting the premises around 1:45 PM on the same night did not exhibit any signs of discomfort in walking or indications of physical assault. These observations challenge the family's claims and suggest a lack of compelling evidence supporting allegations of mistreatment. 11.4. There are no visible signs of distress during the interrogation, a fact corroborated by separate examinations of eyewitnesses. 11.5 While not conclusive, Dipankar Gogoi, after disclosing the names of the accused in the grenade blast, likely faced pressure from ULFA(I) His admission, as per the police, would have led to his arrest, indicating his awareness of the consequences. 11.6 The reconing picking and interrogations of Dipankar Gogoi by the police suggest his possession of crucial information. The fact that he was singled out for repeated questioning implies his involvement in activities related to the incident, potentially contributing essential details leading to the subsequent arrests. It is concluded that Dipankar Gogoi, by providing significant information, played a pivotal role in apprehending the two accused individuals. It is further postulated that he has maintained connections with the organization in question. The assertion that he would have eventually been arrested aligns with the police's submissions, emphasizing the need for a thorough police investigation to validate these claims.” 36) The case diary reveals that upon a proposal being made, the Chief Minister had sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) from Chief Ministers Scheme for Public Emergency (CMDF) for payment to the Next of Kin of the deceased. Accordingly, a cheque bearing no. 548337 dated 12.02.2024, drawn on State Bank of India, Assam Secretariat for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of the father of the petitioner was prepared. It appears that some person with illegible signature had received the said cheque by providing his mobile phone number. 37) Thus, vide F.R. No. 12/2024, dated 19.09.2024, by referring to “on account of mistake of fact”, the case was closed. However, on the strength of the protest petition, the re-investigation of the case was ordered. Upon re- investigation, once again a Final Report No. 13/2025 dated 30.04.2025, was submitted in connection with Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2023. Again on receipt Page No.# 20/22 of notice, a protest petition was filed by the petitioner. As per the contents of the order dated 10.07.2005, the petitioner had projected in her protest petition that sufficient witnesses had not been examined by the I.O. 38) Therefore, after considering the materials available on record, the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, had passed an order dated 10.07.2025, directing that a complaint case be registered. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint case has since been registered. 39) It is seen that the order dated 10.07.2025, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, in connection with Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2023, has attained finality by registration of a complaint case, where the record of Titabar P.S. Case No. 132/2023 has been ordered to be tagged. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by this time, during the pendency of this writ petition, the Complaint Case has since been registered. 40) As two police investigations has not led to recovery of any material against the persons who according to the petitioner, are accused, it would be appropriate for the complaint case to proceed. 41) Under the facts and circumstances which appear on record, the petitioner has not brought out any material to show that the investigation was carried out in a shoddy manner and to shield police personnel. Therefore, the Court is of the considered view that on the basis of materials available on record, further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or investigation by any other independent police authorities, not under the administrative control of the Government of Assam cannot be ordered. Page No.# 21/22 42) Therefore, the issues, which have been raised by the petitioner, can be raised and established by the petitioner in the complaint case, which has been registered on the strength of order dated 10.07.2025, passed by the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar. Therefore, the petitioner has a remedy available to her in accordance with law. The petitioner has not demonstrated anything from which it can be inferred that the complaint case, registered in terms of her objection/ protest petition, is not sufficient or proper. 43) Therefore, by leaving the petitioner to raise the issues agitated by her in the complaint case so registered, this writ petition stands closed. 44) It is clarified that nothing contained in this order shall cause any prejudice to the petitioner, when she prosecutes the accused persons in the complaint case, registered by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Titabar, pursuant to order dated 10.07.2025. Thus, the learned committal court and the learned court trying the matter, shall not be influenced by this order. 45) It is also clarified that this order shall not be construed as a bar for the statutory authorities like State Police Accountability Commission, Assam and Assam Human Rights Commission, to take up the cases that may have been registered for the same incident. 46) The parties are left to bear their own cost. 47) The Pen-drives produced by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate shall be kept in a sealed envelope. JUDGE JUDGE Page No.# 22/22 Comparing Assistant