Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2255/2026 of SRI JAGADISH PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 August 2026
GAHC010163772026 2026:GAU-AS:11664 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2255/2026 SRI JAGADISH PRASAD S/O HARI CHARAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILL MOIRAJAR, P.SGOBARDHANA, DIST- BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN781315. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010163772026
2026:GAU-AS:11664
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2255/2026
SRI JAGADISH PRASAD
S/O HARI CHARAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILL MOIRAJAR, P.SGOBARDHANA, DIST- BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN781315.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA, MR. N M DAS,H BORUAH,MR. J HATIMURIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
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
17.08.2026 Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Sri Jagadish Prasad, who has been languishing in jail hajot since 29.07.2026, in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 89/2026, corresponding to G.R. No. 910/2026, registered under Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, for grant of bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Prakash Choudhury, of Rastriya Bajrang Dal, on 29.07.2026. The essence of allegation against the present accused in the FIR dated 29.07.2026, is that on 28.07.2026, at about 6:45 P.M., acting on a tipoff, the member of Rastriya Bajrang Dal, Barpeta Road Committee, conducted a raid on ‘Mirror Saloon & Spa’ and found one girl inside the said shop, along with the present accused and one Shaymsundar Paul. Thereafter, they reported the matter to the Barpeta Police Station and then, police arrived at the spot and recovered the victim girl, along with the two accused persons, who were involved in flesh trading.
4. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 29.07.2026, and since then, he has been languishing in jail hajot, and that the investigation was carried out in contravention of Section 5 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 4.1 Mr. Kalita further submits that though the accused was apprehended and some of the articles were recovered by Police, said Police Officer is not authorized to carry out the said investigation and as such, the arrest and seizure are not in compliance with the provision of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this petition.
5. Per contra, Mr. Barthakur, learned APP for the State respondent, has produced the case dairy before this Court. He submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused and that, after apprehension of the accused, a special team was constituted. He also submits that the investigation is being carried out by one DSP level officer and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case diary, with the assistance of Mr. Barthakur, learned APP for the State respondent.
7. Case diary indicates sufficient incriminating materials against the accused. Moreover, investigation is going on and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, it will cause serious prejudice to the prosecution side.
8. Though, Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused has contended that as per Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, investigation has to be carried out by a Police Officer, not below the rank of ‘Inspector of Police’, but it appears from the case diary that the investigation is being carried out by one DSP level officer.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this petition. And accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
10. In terms of the above, this Bail Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant