Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3017 (GAU)

SRI TAPAN GHOSH v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

I.A.(Crl.)/342/2025 · 2026-04-06

Pranjal Das

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010070442025 2026:GAU-AS:5160 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/779/2025 SRI TAPAN GHOSH S/O-LATE SIVA PRASAD GHOSH,R/O-32,J.B ROAD,SARBAIBANDHA,JORHAT EAST,P.S-JORHAT,ASSAM,PIN-785001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MS. D GOGOI,MR. R SARMA,MR. P P BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/342/2025 SRI TAPAN GHOSH S/O-LATE SIVA PRASAD GHOSH R/O-32 J.B ROAD SARBAIBANDHA JORHAT EAST P.S-JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001 Page No.# 2/2 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. T J MAHANTA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 07.04.2026 Heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. It was stated in the order vide dated 04.04.2025, that the petitioner is not the owner of the concerned JCB. In this context, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner is the owner of the JCB and not the driver and it is submitted that inadvertently, it was wrongly typed as the petitioner not being the owner of the JCB. Therefore, he has prayed that said part deserves to be corrected. 4. I have found that it might be a mistake at the time of typing. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the I/A stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant