Gauhati High Court
AB/955/2026 of SANJIT NATH AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 11 June 2026
GAHC010090952026 2026:GAU-AS:8451 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/955/2026 SANJIT NATH AND ANR S/O LATE KUMUD BANDHU NATH 2: SMTI. RUMPI NATH W/O SANJIT NATH BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF H. NO. 7 LOKHRA ROAD BACKSIDE OF BAJRANG ROLLING
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010090952026
2026:GAU-AS:8451
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/955/2026
SANJIT NATH AND ANR
S/O LATE KUMUD BANDHU NATH
2: SMTI. RUMPI NATH
W/O SANJIT NATH
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF H. NO. 7
LOKHRA ROAD
BACKSIDE OF BAJRANG ROLLING MILLS
P.S. FATASIL AMBARI
P.O. UDALBAKRA
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781034
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR, MR. R. KARIM,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. P K
DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/2
-BEFORE-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
12.06.2026
Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent. The learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the updated case diary along with the statements of the present petitioners has been received. On perusal of the same, this Court finds that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would not be required at this stage. Accordingly, the interim protection granted vide order dated 11.05.2026 is hereby made absolute, by allowing the petitioners to privilege of a pre-arrest bail, on the bonds already submitted before the arresting authority. It is made clear that, if there is any requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners, the Investigating Authority would be at liberty to approach this Court for modification.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant