Gauhati High Court
AB/2788/2025 of SABITA PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 20 April 2026
GAHC010260052025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2788/2025 SABITA PATHAK W/O KAMAKHYA PATHAK, R/O CHORAUT EAST, CHARAUT, SITHAMARHI, DIST SITAMARI, BIHAR- 843319 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
GAHC010260052025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2788/2025
SABITA PATHAK
W/O KAMAKHYA PATHAK, R/O CHORAUT EAST, CHARAUT, SITHAMARHI, DIST SITAMARI, BIHAR- 843319
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR. J N SUWAI,MR P SONOWAL
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A CHOUDHURY (INFORMANT),MR. AMIT
GOYAL(INFORMANT)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE 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
Date : 21-04-2026 Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned APP appearing for the State. The Case Diary has been received.
The petitioner is on interim bail by the order dated 27.11.2025. The petitioner is the wife of the main accused in the matter where allegations have been raised that the husband of the petitioner had diverted some money from the accounts of the Director, TT Projects Ltd. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Authority and he has also made a statement that the bank accounts of the petitioner have been frozen during the pendency of the investigation. The learned counsel accordingly prays that the interim bail granted to the petitioner may be made absolute during the pendency of the investigation. The learned APP has submitted that the petitioner has, in fact, appeared before the Investigating Officer. Mr. Pranjal Saraf, learned counsel, appears for the informant to assist the learned APP in objecting to the bail prayer. This Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, who is the wife of the accused, may not be necessary during the investigation since she has appeared and participated. Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioner is hereby made absolute, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant