Surajit Dey Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Surajit Dey Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 13.08.2025 set aside; matter remanded to the Trial Court for fresh decision after hearing both sides; petitioner at liberty to file a fresh petition incorporating all relevant materials and facts.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaon refusing to send the seized pen drive and two photographs to the FSL for forensic examination was sustainable.

Court's answer

The learned Trial Court did not apply any judicial mind while passing the impugned order dated 13.08.2025; therefore the impugned order is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for deciding afresh after hearing the learned counsel of both sides.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition incorporating all relevant materials and facts, after which the Trial Court shall consider the matter again.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Crl.Rev.P./269/2026, Gauhati High Court, Parthivjyoti Saikia J., order dated 03.06.2026) - application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 13.08.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaon in Sessions (T-2) Case No.201/2024 (Sections 451/294/506/323/120B/307/201/427 IPC) - Trial Court had refused the Additional Public Prosecutor's prayer to send a seized pen drive and two photographs to the FSL for forensic examination - petitioner contended the incident of assault was videographed, the recording being in the pen drive along with coloured photographs including CCTV footage - held, the Trial Court did not apply any judicial mind while passing the impugned order - impugned order set aside - matter remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh after hearing learned counsel of both sides - petitioner at liberty to file a fresh petition incorporating all relevant materials and facts - revision petition disposed of.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010224112025

2026:GAU-AS:7710

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

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./269/2026

SURAJIT DEY

S/O-LATE RANJIT DEYR/O-AMTOL, DIMORUGURIPO- DIMORUGURIPSNAGAON SADARDISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM,PIN-782003

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

2:SRI PRASENJIT DEY S/O LT RANJIT DEY R/O- DIMORUGURI PO- DIMORUGURI PS- NAGAON SADAR DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM

3:PLABITA HAZARIKA DEY W/O PRASENJIT DEY RESIDENTS OF DIMORUGURI PS- NAGAON SADAR DIST-NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782140

4:SRI MINTU DAS S/O LATE GULAK DAS RESIDENTS OF DIMORUGURI PS- NAGAON SADAR DIST-NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782140

Page No.# 2/3

5:SMTI DULU DAS W/O GOSALPRIYA DAS RESIDENTS OF DIMORUGURI PS- NAGAON SADAR DIST-NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782140

6:MARAMI BORA W/O MRIDUL BORA RESIDENTS OF DIMORUGURI PS- NAGAON SADAR DIST-NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78214

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR. TAPOBRAT CHHETRI,MR. S D ROY,MS. P K DEVI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

ORDER

Date : 03.06.2026

1. Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaon in Sessions (T-2) Case No.201/2024 under Section 451/294/506/323/120B/307/201/427 of the IPC.

3. In a case before the Trial Court, Police seized one pen drive and two photographs. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Court of for sending the aforesaid two items to the FSL for forensic examination. The

Page No.# 3/3

Trial Court refused the prayer on the ground that the petitioner did not disclosed any ground justifying such an act.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire incident of assault was videographed, and the recording has been produced in a pen drive along with coloured photographs. It is further submitted that the pen drive contains the CCTV footage of the said incident

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

6. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court did not apply any judicial mind while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for deciding afresh after hearing the learned counsel of both sides.

7. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition incorporating all relevant materials and facts, after that the Trial Court shall consider the matter again.

8. With the aforesaid direction, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of.

Comparing Assistant