Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1563 (GAU)

KALYANI ROY v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1578/2025 · 2026-03-25

Mitali Thakuria

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010149442025 2026:GAU-AS:4366 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1578/2025 KALYANI ROY W/O DHARMESWAR ROY R/OMUKUNDAPUR P.S. BAIHAT ACHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 26-03-2026 Heard Mr. T. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Kalyani Roy who is apprehending arrest in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No. 320/2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 6726/2024 under Sections 303(2)/318(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel that the present petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. Further after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, she already appeared before the I.O. and cooperated with the investigation of the case and her statement has also been recorded. 5. However, she is still ready and willing to extend her cooperation in the further investigation of the case, if she is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted in this regard that the petitioner had already appeared before the I.O., her statement is also recorded and accordingly, she is cooperating with the investigation of the case. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, the materials available in the case diary and the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation of the case and accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Page No.# 3/3 8. In view of this, the interim bail granted to the present petitioner vide order dated 10.07.2025 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions. 9. With the above observation and direction, this pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. 10. Return the case diary herewith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant