Allowed

Gourab Chutia v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC24 Aug 2026Bail Appln./2438/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the petitioner should not undergo further custodial interrogation after 50 days if he cooperates in the investigation. Grant of bail on joint and several surety bond of Rs. 10,000 each and submission to investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000/- and one surety of like amount, subject to conditions to cooperate in the investigation without leaving jurisdiction.

Gourab Chutia Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010180402026

2026:GAU-AS:12185

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2438/2026

¶6

GOURAB CHUTIA

¶7

S/O KAMA CHUTIA RESIDENT OF BORGAON, PS BAREKURI, DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A HAWARI, MR. R ISLAM

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 25-08-2026

¶15

Heard Mr. A. Hawari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also

¶16

heard Mr. MP Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶17

This is an application under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

¶18

Sanhita, 2023 praying for regular bail of the petitioner who was arrested on

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

07.07.2026 in connection with Tinsikia Police Station Case No. 156/2026, under Section 303(2)/305(c)/317(4)/61(2)112(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Read with Section 3(2)(b) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, read with Section 15(2)/15(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Amendment Act, 2011.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the FIR and to the orders passed by the learned Remand Magistrate, wherein it is reflected that the petitioner is the Security Guard of the parking lot where some condensate oil has been loaded into a night super bus .

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars for 50 days. As per the forwarding report, there are also other persons involved, and the petitioner, being the Security Guard of the Parking Lot, has assisted in the loading of the material into the bus. Accordingly, the petitioner would participate in the investigation and would cooperate with the same if granted the privilege of bail by this Court.

¶23

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner’s involvement is obvious and bail at this point of time may not serve the interests of the investigation.

¶24

I have gone through the materials on record, and I have found that a custodial interrogation of the petitioner for 50 days need not be taken further in

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

the event the petitioner participates in the investigation process.

¶27

Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Tinsukia.

¶28

The learned CJM shall be at liberty to impose such conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure participation of the petitioner in the ongoing investigation process.

¶29

The petitioner will not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer or the learned CJM without prior information.

¶30

Bail petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Gourab Chutia v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gourab Chutia v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases