Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1846 (GAU)

SUDHIR KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/290/2025 · 2026-01-18

Rajesh Mazumdar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010026992025 2026:GAU-AS:560 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/290/2025 SUDHIR KUMAR S/O RAJENDRA P.D. MAHTO PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RLY. QTR. NO. 243/D, BG COLONY,BAMUNIMAIDAN, GUWAHATI-781021, DIST. KAMRUP(METRO), ASSAMAND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MOHAMMADPUR SAKARA DALSINGHSARAI,SAMASTIPUR BIHAR-848114 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B K Mahajan, MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 19.01.2026 Heard Mr B K Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/2 2. By the order dated 12.02.2025, this Court had granted interim protection to the petitioner in the following terms:- “(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. (ii) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. (iii) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any other Police Officer, and iv) That the petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation or tamper with the evidence of the case.” 3. It is submitted on the basis of the records that the petitioner has appeared before the investigating authority and his statement has been recorded. 4. In view of the contents of the Case Diary as received by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and in view of the fact that the statement of the petitioner has already been recorded, this Court does not find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary. 5. In that view of the matter, the interim protection granted vide order dated 12.02.2025, is hereby made absolute. 6. Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant