Disposed¶26

Sri Ranjan Bagchi v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC17 May 2026Crl.Pet./678/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Video conferencing; aged/infirm litigant; complainant's participation in trial; remote appearance; Section 528 BNSS 2023; C.R. Case No. 383C/2007; Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dibrugarh; Tinsukia/Dibrugarh; Gauhati High Court; Crl.Pet./678/2026; order dated 09.03.2026 rejected; petition disposed of 18.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the petitioner to conduct the trial through Video Conferencing; the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 rejecting his prayer was set aside/rejected; Criminal Petition disposed of with this direction. ¶26

Sri Ranjan Bagchi Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010095082026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./678/2026

¶6

SRI RANJAN BAGCHI

¶7

SON OF LATE RAJESH CH. BAGCHI, RESIDENT OF NEAR OVERBRIDGE, MANCOTTA ROAD, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT DIBRUGARH, PINCODE-786001, ASSAM. PRESENTLY AT, FLAT NO.10/03, 3R COMPLEX, PURBACHAL, PHASE-II, GA BLOCK, SECTOR-III, SALT LAKE, KOLKATA, PINCODE700097, WEST BENGAL.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM,

¶10

2:SHRI RANJANA DAS

¶11

WIFE OF SRI AMULYA KUMAR DAS RESIDENT OF NOONPURIA KOIBARTA GAON MOUZA- BOGDONG P.S. DISTRICT TINSUKIA 786125 ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S KHOUND, MS. S. SAIKIA,MR H K NATH

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶14

Page No.# 2/2

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 18.05.2026

¶18

Heard Mr. S Khound, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶19

This is an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed in C.R. Case No.383^C /2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dibrugarh .

¶20

The petitioner, who is aged about 90 years, is the complainant before the trial court. He filed an application before the court stating that because of old age ailments, he could not appear personally to conduct the trial of the case before the court and therefore, he prays that he should be given an opportunity to conduct the trial of the case before the court. He further states that the trial court did not consider the prayer of the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner states that he is interested in conducting the case before the trial court through Video Conferencing and he prays that the trial court should allow his prayer.

¶22