Allowed¶25

Rubi Kalita and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Nov 2025AB/2172/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma; AB/2172/2025; anticipatory bail; pre-arrest bail allowed; interim pre-arrest bail dated 05.09.2025 made absolute; Paltanbazar Police Station Case No. 243/2025; Section 108 BNS 2023; Section 85 BNS 2023; BNS, 2023; FIR dated 22.08.2025; dowry demand; instigation; physical and mental abuse after marriage; Rubi Kalita; Shilpa Kalita; Brajen Bayan; Late Pradip Kalita; State of Assam; PP Assam; M Biswas; K K Dass Addl. Public Prosecutor; custodial interrogation may not be necessary; statements recorded before I.O.; Case Diary sent back; decision date 10.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to all three petitioners; interim pre-arrest bail dated 05.09.2025 made absolute on the same conditions; Case Diary directed to be sent back. ¶25

Rubi Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pre-arrest bail granted to all three petitioners; interim pre-arrest bail dated 05.09.2025 made absolute on the same conditions; Case Diary directed to be sent back.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the three petitioners (Rubi Kalita, Shilpa Kalita and Brajen Bayan, family members of accused No. 1) should be granted pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail in connection with Paltanbazar Police Station Case No. 243/2025 registered under Section 108/85 of the BNS, 2023 — i.e., whether custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary.

¶18

Court's answer

Having regard to the fact that the main accused has already been granted bail and that the petitioners' statements have been recorded (following their appearance before the I.O. pursuant to this Court's interim protection), and considering the progress of the investigation as reflected in the Case Diary, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners is allowed.

¶25

Key takeaways

The interim pre-arrest bail dated 05.09.2025 is made absolute on the same conditions.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PRE-ARREST BAIL GRANTED — Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma), Order dated 10.11.2025, Application No. AB/2172/2025: Petitioners Rubi Kalita, Shilpa Kalita and Brajen Bayan, family members of accused No. 1, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Paltanbazar Police Station Case No. 243/2025 registered under Section 108/85 of the BNS, 2023 (FIR dated 22.08.2025 alleging that, after the informant's daughter married accused No. 1, he — instigated by other accused persons — physically and mentally abused her and dowry was demanded from her). Accused No. 1 had already been arrested and subsequently granted bail; under interim protection granted by this Court the petitioners had appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statements had been recorded; the Additional Public Prosecutor indicated (with reference to the Case Diary) some material regarding an alleged dowry amount against petitioner No. 1. Holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary in view of the main accused already being granted bail, the recorded statements and the progress of investigation reflected in the Case Diary, the Court allowed the prayer for pre-arrest bail, made the interim pre-arrest bail dated 05.09.2025 absolute on the same conditions, and directed that the Case Diary be sent back. No precedent case is cited or engaged with in this short order.

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010200502025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2172/2025

¶5

RUBI KALITA AND 2 ORS WIFE OF LATE PRADIP KALITA RESIDENT OF KRISHNA VILLA, BY LANE NO. 12, JOYMOTI NAGAR, P.O. PANDU, P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶6

2: SHILPA KALITA W/O SHRI BRAJEN BAYAN RESIDENT OF NEAR 14TH APBN NO. 1 DOULASAL DIST. AND P.S. NALBARI ASSAM- 781312.

¶7

3: BRAJEN BAYAN S/O LATE KANDARPA BAYAN RESIDENT OF NEAR 14TH APBN NO. 1 DOULASAL DIST. AND P.S. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781312

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

B E F O R E

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

10.11.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Dass, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶18

2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Paltanbazar Police Station Case no. 243/2025 registered under Section 108/85 of the BNS, 2023.

¶19

3. The FIR dated 22.08.2025 reveals that the daughter of the informant married accused No. 1 arrayed in the said FIR and that after marriage, it is alleged that the accused No. 1 instigated by other accused persons have physically and mentally abused her and that dowry was also demanded from her.

¶20

4. Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused No. 1 arrayed in the said FIR has already been arrested in connection with the said case but he submits that the allegation against the family members of the accused No. 1 are all concocted and as such, has prayed for bail.

¶21

5. The Case Diary (CD), as called for, has not been received.

¶22

6. It appears that the petitioners, pursuant to interim protection granted by this Court, have appeared before the I.O and the statements have been recorded. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor with reference to the Case Diary, points out that there is some material regarding the alleged dowry amount against the petitioner No. 1.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

7. Having regard to the fact that the main accused has already been granted bail and that the petitioners’ statement have been recorded, and considering the progress of the investigation as reflected in the Case Diary, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary.

¶25

8. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed.

¶26

9. The interim pre-arrest bail dated 05.09.2025 is hereby made absolute on the same conditions.

¶27

10. Send back the Case Diary.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Rubi Kalita and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubi Kalita and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Altaf Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Altaf Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Syed Abdus Sattar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Makibul Ali Vs the State of Assam

Moinul Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Asmina Khatun and Anr. Vs the State of Assam