Gauhati High Court
AB/1662/2026 of SRI HARSHIT NAHATA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 11 August 2026
GAHC010150612026 2026:GAU-AS:11338 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1662/2026 SRI HARSHIT NAHATA S/O SRI. AJAY KUMAR NAHATA R/O- NAHATA TEXTILE, DEWANJI BAZAR, SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010150612026
2026:GAU-AS:11338
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1662/2026
SRI HARSHIT NAHATA
S/O SRI. AJAY KUMAR NAHATA R/O- NAHATA TEXTILE, DEWANJI BAZAR, SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MITRA, A R ANSARI,MR A K BORO,MR S.MITRA
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
12.08.2026
Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Silchar PS Case No. 306/2026, under Sections 316(2)/ 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 335/ 336(3)/ 336(4)/ 340(2)/ 61(2) of the BNS, read with Section 66/ 66(C)/ 66(D) of the IT Act, this application under Section 482 of the BNS, is preferred by applicant namely, Harshit Nahata, for grant of pre-arrest bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Manish Nahata, on 03.04.2026.
3.1. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that after some manipulation, the applicant herein had hacked the e-mail ID of the informant and attempted to change his profile on the ICAI portal and also attempted to hack his admit card so as to prevent him from appearing in the examination.
4. Mr. Mitra, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that this Court was pleased to grant interim protection to the applicant, vide order dated 24.07.2026 and pursuant to the said order, the applicant had appeared before the IO and he has been cooperating with the investigating agency and on such count, Mr. Mitra has contended to make the interim order dated 24.07.2026, absolute in the same terms and conditions.
5. Per-contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by producing the case diary before this Court, submits that the applicant had appeared before the IO and his statements had been recorded. However, the IO has collected sufficient incriminating materials against him and therefore, he has contended dismiss this application by vacating the interim order.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the fact that the applicant has been cooperating with the investigating agency and also the progress of investigation, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant seems to be unwarranted here in this case. Accordingly, the interim order dated 24.07.2023, is made absolute in the same terms and conditions.
8. In terms of above this AB stands disposed of.
9. The case diary be returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant