Gauhati High Court
AB/965/2025 of MANDEEP BARUAH Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 15 September 2026
GAHC010088142025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/965/2025 MANDEEP BARUAH S/O- PROMOD CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O- AMARGHAR, FLAT NO.A005, OPPOSITE TO PANIKHETI BAZAR, PANIKHETI, P.O- NARENGI, P.S- NOONMATI, PIN-781026, DIST.-
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010088142025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/965/2025
MANDEEP BARUAH
S/O- PROMOD CHANDRA BARUAH,
R/O- AMARGHAR,
FLAT NO.A005, OPPOSITE TO PANIKHETI BAZAR, PANIKHETI, P.O- NARENGI, P.S- NOONMATI, PIN-781026, DIST.- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY BY PP ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, A ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
16.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. S. H. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, Mandeep Baruah, apprehending arrest in connection with Garchuk P.S. Case No. 85/2025 registered u/s 104(3)/123/115(2)/3(5) of BNS.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 13.03.2025, one Kanta Prasad Khankriyal, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Garchuk police Page No.# 2/2 station, inter alia, alleging that his son, who was married to Ms. Kriti Gurung has been abducted by the daughter-in-law of the first informant.
4. Learned counsel submits that there was some dispute within the family, more specifically between husband and wife and the petitioner was falsely roped in. He was granted interim bail on 29.04.2026 and the main accused has been granted anticipatory bail, in the meantime.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Goswami submits that in the meantime, investigation also stands completed resulting in a charge sheet. However, the Prosecution is not in a position to say at this stage as to whether the present petitioner has been sent up for trial. The Prosecution further submits that perhaps the scanned TCR may be called for and perused.
6. However, I deem it proper to dispose of the matter.
7. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the interim bail passed earlier on 29.04.2026 is hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner:- (a) shall be available for trial, if one commences against him; (b) shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence of the case.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant