Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mustt Amena Khatun Vs the Union of India — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Gauhati HC
2025
Mustt Amena Khatun Vs the Union of IndiaMustt Amena Khatun v. the Union of India

Dismissed¶40

Mustt Amena Khatun v. the Union of India

Gauhati HC2 Nov 2025I.A.(Civil)/2617/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

I.A.(Civil)/2617/2025, Gauhati High Court Division Bench order dated 03.11.2025 (2025:GAU-AS:14841-DB; document id GAHC010177352025), arising from linked WP(C)/388/2018 (Amena Khatun v. Union of India, State of Assam, Deputy Commissioner Sonitpur, Election Commission of India, State Co-ordinator NRC, SP(B) Sonitpur, OC Tezpur Police Station). Extension of time to take bail (bail granted 17.05.2024) refused on grounds of delay and non-approach (invalid contact numbers on record; death of applicant's husband); deportation safeguard retained: applicant, if apprehended, not to be deported out of the Country without the order of the Court. Keywords: extension of time, take bail, foreigners/NRC matter, Tezpur, Sonitpur, deportation, delay, laches.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for extension of time to take bail refused and the interlocutory application dismissed; the only accommodation is the direction that the applicant, if apprehended, shall not be deported out of the Country without the order of the Court.

Why is it important?

The Court declined to extend the period to take bail, the applicant having neither taken the bail granted by order dated 17.05.2024 in WP(C) 388/2018 nor approached the Court within a reasonable time for seeking extension. ¶38

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for extension of time to take bail refused and the interlocutory application dismissed; the only accommodation is the direction that the applicant, if apprehended, shall not be deported out of the Country without the order of the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the time granted to the applicant to take bail pursuant to the order dated 17.05.2024 in WP(C) 388/2018 should be extended. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court declined to extend the period to take bail, the applicant having neither taken the bail granted by order dated 17.05.2024 in WP(C) 388/2018 nor approached the Court within a reasonable time for seeking extension.

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the dismissal, the Court directed that if the applicant (petitioner in WP(C) 388/2018) is apprehended, she shall not be deported out of the Country without the order of the Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, Division Bench (Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund, JJ.), order dated 03.11.2025 in I.A.(Civil)/2617/2025 (neutral citation 2025:GAU-AS:14841-DB) - interlocutory application by Mustt Amena Khatun, petitioner in WP(C)/388/2018, praying for extension of the time granted by order dated 17.05.2024 to take bail. Application dismissed: the applicant had neither taken the bail nor sought extension within a reasonable time; her counsel could not reach her earlier as both mobile numbers on record were invalid, and in the interim her husband expired. Nonetheless, the Court directed that if the applicant is apprehended she shall not be deported out of the Country without the order of the Court. No statute or precedent is cited in the order.

A

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010177352025

2025:GAU-AS:14841-DB

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

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2617/2025

MUSTT AMENA KHATUN

W/O- MD. MAIN UDDIN, VILL- NO.1 DOLABARI P.O. KALIA BHOMORA, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR

4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI

5:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) SONITPUR

7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE TEZPUR POLICE STATIO

Page No.# 2/4

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F U BARBHUIYA, MS. S DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T

Linked Case : WP(C)/388/2018 AMENA KHATUN W/O- MD. MAIN UDDIN VILL- NO.1 DOLABARI P.O. KALIA BHOMORA P.S. TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR

4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI

5:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) SONITPUR 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE

Page No.# 3/4

TEZPUR POLICE STATION

-----------Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA

BEFORE

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

ORDER

Date : 03.11.2025 (K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

By filing this interlocutory application, the applicant, namely, Mustt. Amena Khatun has prayed for extension of time to take bail, which was granted by order dated 17.05.2024, passed in WP(C) 388/2018.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after passing of the order dated 17.05.2024, he had tried to contact the applicant in the 2 (two) mobile numbers provided, but both of those mobile numbers were invalid and therefore, the applicant could not be contacted to be informed about the order. However, in the meantime, she met her engaged counsel and got information about the directions contained in the order dated 17.05.2024 to take bail, but by then, the time granted to take bail has already expired.

The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that in the meanwhile, the husband of the applicant had also expired and therefore, the

Page No.# 4/4

applicant could not approach her engaged counsel on time.

It may be noticed that despite order dated 17.05.2024, passed in WP(C) 388/2018, the applicant has not taken bail, nor she had approached this Court within a reasonable time for seeking extension of time to take bail.

Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to extend the period to take bail.

Nonetheless, it is provided that in the event the applicant, namely, Mustt. Amena Khatun, who is the petitioner in WP(C) 388/2018 is apprehended, she shall not be deported out of the Country without the order of the Court.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the time granted to the applicant to take bail pursuant to the order dated 17.05.2024 in WP(C) 388/2018 should be extended.¶32
The court held
The Court declined to extend the period to take bail, the applicant having neither taken the bail granted by order dated 17.05.2024 in WP(C) 388/2018 nor approached the Court within a reasonable time for seeking extension.ratio¶38
2.
Whether, notwithstanding the refusal to extend time, a safeguard should be directed that the applicant, if apprehended, shall not be deported without the order of the Court.medium confidence¶39
The court held
Notwithstanding the dismissal, the Court directed that if the applicant (petitioner in WP(C) 388/2018) is apprehended, she shall not be deported out of the Country without the order of the Court.ratio¶39

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Parent/linked writ petition WP(C)/388/2018 filed by the applicant, Amena Khatun, against the Union of India, State of Assam, Deputy Commissioner Sonitpur, Election Commission of India, State Co-ordinator NRC, SP(B) Sonitpur and OC Tezpur Police Station.¶21
Prior proceeding
By order dated 17.05.2024 passed in WP(C) 388/2018, bail was granted to the applicant with a stipulated time to take bail; that time subsequently expired.¶32
Prior proceeding
After the order dated 17.05.2024, counsel could not inform the applicant of the bail direction because both mobile numbers provided were invalid; she learnt of it only on meeting her engaged counsel, by which time the period to take bail had expired.¶33
Prior proceeding
In the interim, the applicant's husband expired, further delaying her approach to her engaged counsel.¶34
Prior proceeding
Court's observation of delay/non-compliance: despite the order dated 17.05.2024, the applicant neither took bail nor approached the Court within a reasonable time for seeking extension of time to take bail.¶37

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Mustt Amena Khatun (W/o Md. Main Uddin, Vill- No.1 Dolabari, P.O. Kalia Bhomora, P.S. Tezpur, Dist- Sonitpur, Assam)¶32
F.U. Barbhuiya, S. Das
respondent
The Union of India (represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi)¶21
U.K. Goswami
respondent
The State of Assam (represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home Deptt., Dispur, GHY-6)¶11
G. Sarma, H.K. Hazarika
respondent
The Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur¶13
respondent
The Election Commission of India, New Delhi¶14
M. Islam
respondent
The State Co-ordinator, National Register of Citizens, Assam¶15
respondent
The Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur¶16
respondent
The Officer in Charge, Tezpur Police Station¶17

Coram

AI extract

Kalyan Rai Suranaauthor¶30
Susmita Phukan Khaundmember¶28

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Gauhati HC
Decided on: 2 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 11 Aug 2025
Case no.: I.A.(Civil)/2617/2025
CNR: GAHC010177352025
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana Susmita Phukan Khaund
Disposal: Disposed Of
Case type: I.A.(Civil)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Kalyan Rai Surana Susmita Phukan Khaund

Kalyani Tudu and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.
31 Oct 2025
Musstt. Afuja Begum @ Afruja Begum Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.
31 Oct 2025
Asrab Ali Vs the Union of India and Ors.
31 Oct 2025
Torap Ali Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.
2 Nov 2025
Smti Rinju Kumari Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.
2 Nov 2025Public Interest Litigation
Raham Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.
2 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Mustt Amena Khatun v. the Union of India, I.A.(Civil)/2617/2025 (GAU), decided on 2 November 2025.

The Gauhati High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history5

Parent/linked writ petition WP(C)/388/2018 filed by the applicant, Amena Khatun, against the Union of India, State of Assam, Deputy Commissioner Sonitpur, Election Commission of India, State Co-ordinator NRC, SP(B) Sonitpur and OC Tezpur Police Station.
By order dated 17.05.2024 passed in WP(C) 388/2018, bail was granted to the applicant with a stipulated time to take bail; that time subsequently expired.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund

Parties & counsel