Nabin Chandra Rabha and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010220382025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:13809-DB

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/69/2025

¶6

NABIN CHANDRA RABHA AND ANR

¶7

S/O LATE DIPO RAM RABHA, RESIDENT OF PRASHRUKHUWA, TATIBAMA, P.O- AMRANGA, P.S- PALASHBARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN781125

¶8

2: SMTI BHASWATI RABHA D/O SRI NABIN CHANDRA RABHA RESIDENT OF PRASHRUKHUWA TATIBAMA P.O- AMRANGA P.S- PALASHBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 78112

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6

¶11

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781007

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTERS ULUBARI ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781007

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

4:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KAMRUP AMINGAON

¶15

5:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE PALASHBARI POLICE STATION DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L N DIHINGIA, MR A BARUAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 14.10.2025 (K.R. Surana, J)

¶21

Heard Mr. L.N. Dihingia, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶22

By filing this habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has expressed grievance that his wife, named in his FIR lodged, before the Senior Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam on 20.08.2025, is missing since 03.08.2025. It is projected that on the same day information was provided to Palashbari Police Station but the whereabouts of his wife could not be found. It is alleged in the said FIR that the parents of his wife, had abducted his wife and thereafter, his wife along with a particular person named in the FIR are missing.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he suspects that the parents of his wife in collusion with the person named in the FIR have abducted his wife and both of them have fled away.

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

Pursuant to directions contained in the order dated 25.09.2025, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that in the meantime the concerned police officers have conducted an enquiry and enquiry/ investigation carried out so far shows that the wife of the petitioner had informed the family members that she was having a meeting and she was going far away and since then she was untraced. Subsequently, on receipt of an FIR dated 13.08.2025, by the mother of the wife of the petitioner, Palashbari P.S. G.D.E No. 20 dated 13.08.2025, was registered. The petitioner has also submitted a complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kamrup on 15.09.2025, and by a communication under Memo No. Crime/IV-PG/2025/5799 dated 15.09.2025, the said FIR was sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Palashbari Police Station.

¶26

According to the communication dated 13.10.2025, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Amingaon, which is addressed to the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, copy of which is produced before the Court, it has been stated that the wife of the petitioner, out of own will, eloped with person named in the FIR of the petitioner and she was staying with him at a particular village in the district of Jorhat. The Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat Police Station, upon receipt of instruction, had recorded the statement of the wife of the petitioner which was recorded and duly videographed. According to the said communication by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Amingaon, the wife of the did not have a smooth marital life, and she had eloped with the person named in the FIR of the petitioner and is presently staying with him in Jorhat. Resultantly, no element of kidnapping was found during investigation. The communication dated 13.10.2025, addressed to the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate be made a part of record.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

The statement of the wife of the petitioner is that she wants to stay with the said person and not with the petitioner. The statement of wife of the petitioner was videographed and a copy thereof has been produced before this Court in the form of compact disk.

¶29

As the statement which has been recorded in writing is available as enclosure to the said letter dated 13.10.2025, Court is of the considered opinion that no point will be served if the compact disk is played as copy of the said statement is already available in the written form. At the request of the Court, a copy of the said communicated dated 13.10.2025, along with enclosures thereto have been provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate.

¶30

Under the circumstances, as the wife of the petitioner, the alleged victim of kidnapping has been traced out and her statement has already recorded by the police, which does not disclose that she was kidnapped, the Court is of the considered opinion that the purpose of this habeas corpus petition has been achieved with tracking out of the wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, without prejudice to the petitioner to take such legal steps as may be so advised, this habeas corpuspetition stands closed.

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Nabin Chandra Rabha and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabin Chandra Rabha and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu Mala Bibi Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ayesha Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Amir Hamja @ Amir Ali Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ambia Khatun Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Musstt Nazima Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Amir Uddin Mazumder Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.