✦ Gauhati High Court

Judgment · High Court

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Heard Ms. S. Khanikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P. Perused the case diary and the materials on record. The FIR was lodged by the first informant alleging physical torture coupled with demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws. On perusal of the materials on record, I do not find sufficient incriminating ma terials warranting custodial interrogation of the petitioner in connection with this case and in the event of release of the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, furt her investigation of the case would not be adversely effected. Accordingly, the interim order passed by this Court on 18.12.2012 is hereby made absolute. However, on the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. within 10 days from today and thereafter shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. ALL WOMEN P.S. CASE No. 129 of 2012). ← Search more judgments