Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4227 (GAU)

SURAJ CHETRY v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2770/2025 · 2026-01-19

Rajesh Mazumdar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010257092025 2026:GAU-AS:740 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2770/2025 SURAJ CHETRY SON OF SWAPNA CHETRY R/O MOINAPARA, P.O AND P.S. GOLAGHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BORUAH, MS. M BHUYAN,MS. P BORAH,MS P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 20.01.2026 Heard Mr K Boruah, learned counsel a for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By the order dated 25.11.2025, this Court had granted an interim protection to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:- “i) That the accused shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer making himself available for examination. Page No.# 2/2 ii) That the accused person shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. iii) He shall not in any manner indulge in any illegal activities, including any activities prohibited under the NDPS Act.” 3. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has appeared before the investigating authority and his statement has been recorded. He, therefore, submits that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as of now. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has been found to be involved in other case involving the NDPS Act, where the accused has been charge sheeted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Special NDPS Case No. 31/2025, although the petitioner was put up as an accused, the learned Trial Court had discharged the petitioner. 6. Having considered all the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the interim bail granted on 25.11.2025, in so far it relates to the petitioner deserves to be made absolute, subject to the condition that the State would be at liberty to bring to the notice of the Court any further materials collected during the investigation to implicate the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant