Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1947/2019 of MANOJ KALITA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. on 28 July 2026
GAHC010061182019 2026:GAU-AS:10461 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1947/2019 MANOJ KALITA S/O. LT. TABURAM KALITA, R/O. PUB GEETANAGAR, NEAR GURUKUL SCHOOL, P.S. NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-24, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE
GAHC010061182019
2026:GAU-AS:10461
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1947/2019
MANOJ KALITA
S/O. LT. TABURAM KALITA, R/O. PUB GEETANAGAR, NEAR GURUKUL
SCHOOL, P.S. NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-24, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
THROUGH THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME
DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
GUWAHATI
PANBAZAR
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI-01.
4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
LATASIL POLICE STATION
GUWAHATI-01
ASSAM.
5:HEMANTA KR. DAS @ SANKAR RAJ SINGH
S/O. GURUDAYAL DAS
R/O. BISWANATH CHARIALI
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI
DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM.
6:GAURAV BEZBARUAH
S/O. SANA BEZBARUAH
R/O. PORAKUCHI
SANDHYA
NALBARI
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM- PRESENT ADDRESS- PAIKARKUCHI
BEZBARUAH SUBURI
RANGIA
P.S. RANGIA
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
7:UCO BANK
SILPUKHURI BRANCH
SILPUKHURI
GUWAHATI-781003
For the Petitioner(s) : XXXX
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarmah, Govt. Advocate Mr. P. C. Goswami, Advocate
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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.
O R D E R
29.07.2026
None appears on behalf of the Petitioner on call. Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4. Mr. P. C. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.7.
2. This Court duly takes note of that the Petitioner had been granted various opportunities to take steps upon the Respondent No.5, however, the Petitioner has not chosen to do so. Be that as it may, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of the reliefs which have been sought for by the Petitioner in the present proceedings. The Petitioner's grievance is on account of the investigation in Lotasil P.S. Case No.296/2013 being not properly conducted and as such directions have been sought for to conduct the investigation and arrest the private Respondents.
3. It is the opinion of this Court that if the Petitioner is not convinced with the investigations so carried out, the remedy of the Petitioner lies before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Further to that, it is also the opinion of this Court that as to whether the private Respondent should be arrested or not comes within the ambit of the investigating agency and it is not for this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to pass directions to arrest the accused.
4. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the present proceedings initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution, for which the writ petition stands dismissed.
5. The dismissal of the instant proceedings shall not affect the investigation or any further proceedings thereupon in connection with Latasil P.S. Case No.293/2013.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant