Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 871 (GAU)

JINTU ALIAS GOBIND ALIAS GOBIN PRASAD v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/13/2026 · 2026-01-26

Pranjal Das

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010000212026 2026:GAU-AS:878 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/13/2026 JINTU ALIAS GOBIND ALIAS GOBIN PRASAD SON OF LT. JAGADISH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILL. LAKLONGIA GAON, P.S. DHING, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,A MISHRA,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 27.01.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, Page No.# 2/3 Jintu @ Gobind @ Gobin Prasad, apprehending arrest in connection with Dhing P.S. Case No. 292/2025 registered u/s 105 of BNS. 3. The FIR was lodged by the father of the victim boy with the allegation that on 02.12. 2025 he had taken his minor son to Raj Medical Hall. As per the instructions of the Dhing FRU, the staff of the medical hall brought an injection for dog bite and while the informant was coming to the FRU, he forcefully injected his son and after 10 minutes his son died. 4. It is submitted that the present petitioner is stated to be an employee of the said Raj Medical Hall where the rabies vaccine was administered to the victim. 5. The petitioner was granted interim bail on 06.01.2026. It is submitted that even earlier also and after getting interim bail as well, the petitioner made himself available for examination. Some documents were also stated to have been seized from the petitioner. 6. The case diary has been received and the prosecution confirms that the statement of the petitioner has also been recorded during the investigation and after grant of interim bail. 7. In the opinion regarding cause of death available in the case, it is stated that the final opinion could not be given due to non receipt of the viscera report. However, the histopathology report of the lung tissue suggests that death may be due to pulmonary causes. It is submitted by the prosecution that from the investigation, it is not noticed that the injections in questions were counterfeit. 8. The statement of the petitioner has been recorded as revealed by the case diary. There is some indication in the investigating materials that there might have been some overdoses of the said injection at the time of administering it, Page No.# 3/3 which might be the cause of the death. 9. Nevertheless, seeing the progress of investigation and the cooperation rendered by the petitioner to the investigation pursuant to grant of interim bail – I am of the considered view that despite the bail objection, it may not be necessary to cancel the interim bail granted earlier. 10. Accordingly, the interim bail dated 06.01.2026 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions that:- (i) He shall continue cooperating with the investigation. (ii) Shall not hamper or tamper with evidence, and, (iii) Shall not cause any harm, intimidation or harassment to witnesses or the informant side. 11. Violation of any bail condition will entail cancellation of the bail. 12. Accordingly, this instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant