Gauhati High Court
AB/1869/2026 of RITAMONI DAS Vs STATE OF ASSAM on 7 September 2026
GAHC010170092026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1869/2026 RITAMONI DAS DAUGHTER OF RAMESH DAS R/O WARD NO. 5 RANGIA P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM, PIN 781354 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
GAHC010170092026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1869/2026
RITAMONI DAS
DAUGHTER OF RAMESH DAS
R/O WARD NO. 5 RANGIA P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, DISTRICT KAMRUP
ASSAM, PIN 781354
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M GARODIA, R I KHAN,MR S H SIKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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
Date : 08.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in connection with Rangia P.S. Case No. 254/2026 registered under Sections 61(2)/336(3)/338 of BNS, 2023.
3. In the instant case, the Circle Officer, Rangia Revenue Circle had lodged an FIR where from it appears that certain Notary Affidavits were submitted in support of the NOC applications for Land Sale Permission which were submitted by certain persons and upon verification, it was found that the deponents of the said affidavits never signed the affidavits.
4. The petitioner herein is one of the notaries who had notarized the aforesaid affidavits.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had bonafide, notarized the affidavits upon the deponent being identified by the Advocate.
6. Case diary as called for has been received.
7. It appears that pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court, the petitioner had appeared before the IO and his statement has also been recorded.
8. Having regard to the above as well as the nature of allegations, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 13.08.2026 is hereby made absolute.
9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant