Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./549/2026 of ANUBHAB GOGOI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 22 March 2026
GAHC010035812026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./549/2026 ANUBHAB GOGOI S/O LT. DIGANTA GOGOI R/O-VILL-1 NO. BETONIPAM P.S.- SILAPATHAR DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP,
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010035812026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./549/2026
ANUBHAB GOGOI
S/O LT. DIGANTA GOGOI R/O-VILL-1 NO. BETONIPAM P.S.- SILAPATHAR
DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:PRANITA DAS
W/O-HEMANTA DAS
R/O VILL- UTTARKUCHI
P.S.- BARBARI
DISTRICT- BAKSA
ASSAM PIN-78137
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T CHUTIA, MS S NASRAT
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR D BHATTACHARYA, AMICUS CURIAE, R2
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
23.03.2026 Heard Mr. T. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP for the State and Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no.2.
Page No.# 2/2 The learned APP submits that the identity card reflecting the date of birth of the petitioner has been verified and confirms that the petitioner is a student of the said institution. It was already observed in the earlier order that, at the time of commission of the offence, the petitioner appeared to be a minor. Today, learned Amicus Curiae submits that, in the event the petitioner was a minor at the time of commission of the offence, the relevant provisions of law would govern the proceedings. Having considered the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the continued custody of the petitioner, who was allegedly a minor at the time of commission of the offence, is not necessary. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned jurisdictional court. The court considering the bail bond shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner during the course of further investigation/trial. The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant