Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010244492025 2026:GAU-AS:9283- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/73/2025 RAJESH GUPTA (THROUGH HIS MOTHER BINA GUPTA), SON OF SMTI. BINA GUPTA, RESIDENT OF HILLVIEW ROAD, JYOTIKUCHI, P.O AND P.S- FATASIL AMBARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), GUWAHATI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781008 3:THE DCP (WEST) ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781008 4:THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE FATASIL AMBARI POLICE STATION FATASIL AMBARI GUWAHATI- 781025 5:S.I. MINTU BAISHYA 2ND OFFICER-IN-CHARGE FATASIL AMBARI POLICE STATION FATASIL AMBARI GUWAHATI- 781025 Page No.# 2/6 6:S.I. MUDI FATASIL AMBARI POLICE STATION FATASIL AMBARI GUWAHATI- 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D BANERJEE, M J HAZARIKA,JOGABRATA BHATTACHARJEE Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 25.06.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. D. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate. 2. By filing this writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Officer-In-Charge of the Fatasil Ambari P.S. to produce the petitioner forthwith before the Court and upon production/ or his release with a further prayer to call for the relevant records and documents pertaining to the detention of the petitioner from the Fatasil Ambari P.S. from 01.11.2025 till the date of filing of the writ petition and for monetary compensation. 3. When the matter was first listed on 04.11.2025, this Court had recorded that the petitioner was brought to the Police Station on the basis of an information registered as GDE No.27 dated 02.11.2025, which was entered at the instance of information received from the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter released on execution of a P.R. Bond on 02.11.2025 Page No.# 3/6 for the first time. 4. As per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.4, after the petitioner was released on P.R. Bond, another information was received by the Police Station and the petitioner was once again brought to the Police Station and he was again released on execution of P.R. Bond on 03.11.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue relating to the estranged relationship with his wife is a different subject matter and that the petitioner was brought to the Police Station on 02.11.2025, for extraneous consideration. It is submitted that at the time when the petitioner was picked up by the police and brought to the Police Station on 02.11.2025, no FIR was registered. It is further submitted that the arrest of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various decisions safeguarding the interest of citizens in the course of arrest. 6. The learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.4. 7. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that on 01.11.2025 at about 11:00 PM, the Fatasil Ambari Police Station had received a telephonic information that the petitioner was violently assaulting his wife and their two minor daughters at their residence. Accordingly, the police patrol team immediately reached the location and found the petitioner in a heavily intoxicated, aggressive and violent condition and was immediate source of danger to the safety of his wife and minor children. Accordingly, he was brought to the Police Station purely as preventive safety measure. It is Page No.# 4/6 admitted that no FIR has been lodged by that time and accordingly, no penal procedure was initiated. 8. On 02.11.2025, the informant had appeared before the Police Station and submitted a detailed written FIR regarding continuous domestic violence, intoxicated assaults and inappropriate behaviour towards their minor daughters. The said complaint was entered vide Fatasil Ambari P.S. GDE No.27 dated 02.11.2025 and the complainant and her daughters were sent for medical examination. The petitioner was then released on P.R. Bond on the same date, which was recorded vide GDE No.38 dated 02.11.2025. Thereafter, on his release the petitioner again created disturbance and engaged in a fresh quarrel with his wife near their residence and upon information received, acting on the fresh incident, once again the petitioner was brought to the Police Station on 03.11.2025 at about 12:30 A.M., which was registered vide GDE No.02 dated 03.11.2025. 9. On 05.09.2025, in another complaint, the wife of Raghu Gupta, the brother of the petitioner had submitted a written application to the Commissioner of Police stating that her husband and his family members including the petitioner were torturing her in various ways by demand of dowry, further alleging that the members of the family and her husband had allegedly set her ablaze by pouring kerosene, causing multiple burn injuries on her body. Accordingly, Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No.140/25, under Sections 85/ 118(2)/ 109(1) of the BNS was registered. Accordingly, one Raghu Gupta, the brother of the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. Therefore, the incident relating to Raghu Gupta is a different incident. 10. It may be pertinent to mention that the police was in receipt of Page No.# 5/6 another complaint and further information on 12.08.2025 wherein it is stated that the petitioner was a habitual drinker and frequently returned home intoxicated and assaulted her. According, to the said affidavit by the respondent no.4, the behavior of the petitioner was corroborated with local findings. 11. It is stated that even the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Kamrup (M) found it necessary to rescue both minor children of the brother of the petitioner and his estranged wife for ensuring their safety and well being and CWC took note of the recurrent violent behaviour of both brothers including the petitioner, creating an unsafe family environment. 12. Under the circumstances, instead of deprecating, the Court appreciates the effort of the police of Fatasil Ambari Police Station to have the petitioner brought into the Police Station for recurring intoxicated and domestic violence meted out to the complainant, i.e., the wife of the petitioner. 13. Therefore, the Court does not find any good reason to continue with the matter having noted that from the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no.4 that the petitioner is a habitual offender of domestic violence against his wife. 14. Therefore, in such cases when the wife alleges domestic violence before the police, the police has a duty to protect the wife. Hence, the bringing of the petitioner to the police station as a measure of protection to women suffer domestic violence that the petitioner is a habitual offender of domestic violence against his wife. Therefore, in such cases when the wife Page No.# 6/6 alleges domestic violence before the police, the police has a duty to protect the wife. Hence, the bringing of the petitioner to the police station as a measure of protection to women suffer domestic violence in this instant case, may be the only way to give protection to the aggrieved women. 15. Accordingly, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. 16. Under the circumstances we refraining ourselves from imposing cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant