The State of Assam Vs Jyoti Kamal Bania — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2026)

The State of Assam Vs Jyoti Kamal Bania — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave granted to the prosecution (State of Assam) to prefer an appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 12-12-2024 in Special Case No. 24 of 2017; Registry directed to register the appeal and list the matter for admission.

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to the State of Assam (prosecution), invoking Section 419(3) of the BNSS, to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent passed by the Special Judge, Assam.

Court's answer

Leave is granted to the State of Assam (prosecution) to prefer an appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 12-12-2024 passed by the Special Judge in Special Case No. 24 of 2017.

Ratio / Principle

The leave petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to register the appeal and list the matter for admission.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Pranjal Das, J.), order dated 06.02.2026 in Crl.L.P./25/2025: The State of Assam, represented by the prosecution, invoked Section 419(3) of the BNSS seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of Jyoti Kamal Bania by the learned Special Judge, Assam, in Special Case No. 24 of 2017 (order dated 12-12-2024), wherein the respondent had faced trial under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was acquitted. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the acquittal judgment suffered from infirmities, that the testimony of P.W. 13, Pinaki Prasad Mitra, who had specifically implicated the respondent, was overlooked, and that there was specific evidence of demand of money corroborated by other witnesses; the case arose from an alleged demand of Rs. 20,000/- bribe by the respondent as Investigating Officer of a police case, followed by a Vigilance Department trap. Counsel for the respondent submitted there was no infirmity but that orders be passed as per law. Deeming it fit in the given facts and circumstances, the Judge granted the leave, allowed and disposed of the petition, and directed the Registry to register the appeal and list it for admission.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010104082025

undefined

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

Case No. : Crl.L.P./25/2025

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

VERSUS

JYOTI KAMAL BANIA

S/O. HAREN KUMAR BANIA, R/O- CHAGOLI CHUBURI, P/O.- TEZPUR, DISTSONITPUR, ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner : PP, ASSAM, RANJAN JYOTI BARUA

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. C CHOUDHURY , MR. D GAGAI,MR. M S HUSSAIN

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

ORDER

06.02.2026

Heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Gagai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

State of Assam represented by the prosecution invoking section 419

(3) of BNSS is seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment in

Page No.# 2/3

order dated 12-12-2024 passed by the landed Special Judge Assam in Special Case No. 24 of 2017 ( State of Assam VS Jyoti Kamal Bania) whereby the respondent who faced trial for charges under Section 7/13(1) (d)(ii)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was acquitted.

It is submitted by Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the case arose out of the situation where the respondent as the I.O. of a police case, sought bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the informant and who in turn, instead of paying the bribe, informed the Vigilance Department, whereupon trap proceeding was carried out and the case initiated.

It is submitted that the judgment of acquittal suffers from infirmities and the testimony of some important witnesses like P.W. 13, Pinaki Prasad Mitra have been overlooked and that the said witness had specifically implicated the respondent.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the State may be given an opportunity to pursue the appeal against the acquittal.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment sought to be impugned but also fairly submits that necessary orders may to be passed as per law governing the subject matter.

I have perused the leave petition filed by the Prosecution and considered the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

It has been contended in the petition that there was specific evidence of prosecution witness about the demand of money and the incriminating evidence was corroborated by other witnesses.

In the given facts and circumstances, I deem it fit to grant the leave.

Accordingly allowing this leave petition, the prosecution is hereby

Page No.# 3/3

granted the leave to prefer the appeal against the aforesaid judgment passed by the Special Judge.

This petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Registry is directed to register the appeal and list the matter for admission.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant