Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2706 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 25 March, 2026

Author: K.R. Surana

Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana

                                                                     Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010115192025




                                                          2026:GAU-AS:4293-DB

                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/19/2025

         BIKUL BORA
         S/O PHULESWAR BORAH
         R/O BORBARI, BYLANE -02, JONAKI NAGAR, H.NO. 05, P.O.
         HENGRABARI,P.S. DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781036



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HOME
         DEPARTMENT, PIN-781006

         2:INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI
          PIN-781007

         3:COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

          PANBAZAR
          GUWAHATI
          PIN-781001.

         4:OFFICE IN CHARGE

          DISPUR POLICE STATION

         GUWAHATI
         PIN-781006.

         5:INVESTIGATION OFFICER
                                                                            Page No.# 2/5

                 DISPUR POLICE STATION
                 GUWAHATI
                 PIN-781006.

             6:HR MANAGER

             OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
             NUMALIGARH
             GOLAGHAT
             PIN-78561

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR MINTU SAIKIA, MR J FIRDAUS,MS R DUTTA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
                  HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

                                           ORDER

Date : 25.03.2026:

(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The matter was heard on 19.03.2026, and the case was fixed for delivery of order on 25.03.2026, i.e. today.

3. While perusing the writ petition for dictating the order, a few points have come to the notice of the Court, which as follows:-

i. The prayer no. 1 in the writ petition is to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Such prayer has been made though there is no allegation that on 27.05.2025, when this writ petition was filed, the petitioner is in illegal detention.

           ii.      The prayer no. 2 reads as follows -
                                                                                Page No.# 3/5

"2. Discernable statement made by the State respondent in two different dated arising out of AB Case No. 980/2025 when the matter was called upon 06/05/2025 and 13/05/2025."

Firstly, the prayer could not be understood. Secondly, by no stretch of imagination, the said statement can be said to be a prayer at all.

iii. The prayer no. 3 is as follows:-

"3. Declare the agreement which was made between the parties under influence of police personnel of Dispur P/S arising out of such F.I.R. as void and alternatively ask the Officer-in-Charge of Dispur P.S. to furnish a copy of the F.I.R. dated 09.04.2025 filed by the HR Manager, Offshore Infrastructure Ltd., and pass any other order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

In respect of the first part of prayer no. 3, the petitioner has prayed to declare the agreement between the parties as one made under influence of police personnel of Dispur Police Station as void. However, no such agreement has been annexed to this writ petition. Be that as it may, the Court is of the considered opinion that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot declare an agreement between the parties as one made under influence of police personnel of Dispur Police Station because the consideration of such a prayer would require appreciation of pleadings and evidence, which can only be done by the civil court having jurisdiction.

iv. In respect of the alternative prayer no. 3 in the writ petition, for directing the Officer-in-Charge of Dispur P.S. to furnish a copy of the FIR is concerned, the petitioner may be well advised to apply for certified copy of the FIR in the manner prescribed. Moreover, a copy of the FIR is seen to have been annexed as Annexure-B to the affidavit Page No.# 4/5

filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 06.03.2026.

v. The alternative prayer no. 4 of the writ petition is to direct a disciplinary enquiry against the Investigating Officer. However, the said police officer has not been impleaded by name. Thus, such formal defect of non-impleading of proper and necessary parties can only be removed by impleading the concerned person against whom departmental proceeding is prayed for, because a departmental/ disciplinary proceeding can only be initiated against a "person" and not against a "post".

vi. Further, it is noticed that there is a mismatch between the statements made in the writ petition and the prayer made in the writ petition. On a conjoint reading of the statements made in paragraphs 12 to 15, 17 and 18 of the writ petition, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was taken into custody on 12.04.2025 at 05:30 pm, and he was brought to Dispur Police Station and his medical examination was conducted at about 12:30 am on 13.04.2025 and after detaining the petitioner for 12 hours in police custody, two cheques were issued by the petitioner. Thus, there is no positive statement about the time when the petitioner was allowed to go out of the Dispur Police Station. However, in prayer no. 1 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner was detained for more than 12 hours from 5:00 pm of 09.05.2025 to 08:00 am on 10.04.2025. Such inept, clumsy and casual drafting would ordinarily have lead to dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Ordinarily, the Court would have dismissed the writ petition containing so many defects due to defective, inept, clumsy and casual drafting, but as an important issue of police highhandedness has been raised by the petitioner, the Page No.# 5/5

Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to dismiss the writ petition merely because of inept, clumsy and casual drafting of the writ petition. The Court is inclined to take note of the principle that ordinarily, a litigant should not suffer because of his counsel.

5. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, in this case, the ends of justice would be met to dismiss the writ petition in the present form due to formal defects of non-impleading of proper and necessary parties and mismatch between the statements made in the writ petition and prayer made in the writ petition, however, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed owing to formal defects in the writ petition. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Court again by filing a fresh writ petition.

                                    JUDGE                  JUDGE



Comparing Assistant