Nominal IndexPrasun Banik v. The State of Assam and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 42Sibo Prasad Choudhury and 5 Ors v. Bicky Khan and 2 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 44Mizanul Hoque v. State of Assam and 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 44Mukesh Jalan v. State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 45Dwipjyoti Talukdar Vs. The Union of India and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 46Prasanta Kumar Borah v. The State of Assam and 4...
Nominal Index
Prasun Banik v. The State of Assam and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 42
Sibo Prasad Choudhury and 5 Ors v. Bicky Khan and 2 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
Mizanul Hoque v. State of Assam and 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
Mukesh Jalan v. State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 45
Dwipjyoti Talukdar Vs. The Union of India and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 46
Prasanta Kumar Borah v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 47
Sri Ram Krishna Dutta & Ors. v. Bimal Phukan @ Bipin Bharali 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 48
Bail Can Be Cancelled If Procured By Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Prasun Banik v. The State of Assam and Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 42
The Gauhati High Court has held that bail granted to an accused person can be cancelled where it has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
Justice Pranjal Das observed, “...a bail order can also be cancelled, if it was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. The aforesaid principle would be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances that have emerged in the instant case as narrated and discussed above. Clearly, the respondent No.2/accused misrepresented facts amounting to fraud regarding his resignation in securing the bail order. Therefore, on the touchstone of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the bail granted to the accused deserves to be cancelled in exercise of both the inherent powers of this Court as well as the powers of bail cancellation available to this Court concurrently with that of the Sessions Court,” the Court added.
Case Title: Sibo Prasad Choudhury and 5 Ors v. Bicky Khan and 2 Ors
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
The Gauhati High Court has held that where an earlier trial court judgment had already been set aside by the appellate court remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, the appellate court cannot later reconsider the earlier "non-existent judgment" on merits and uphold it.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita observed that Judgment dated 30.04.2011, passed by the magistrate court was in essence set aside by the Sessions Court on 01.11.2011 wherein the session judge had specifically stated that it was a fit case for remand.
Case Title:Md. Mizanul Hoque v. State of Assam and 3 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
The Gauhati High Court has held that a departmental proceeding cannot be sustained where the disciplinary authority shows a pre-determined mind at the very stage of issuing the first show cause notice, and where the enquiry is conducted in a manner contrary to law, rendering the process unfair
Justice Rajesh Mazumdar observed, “…the words used in the first show cause notice like 'gross misconduct', 'act of indiscipline and dereliction of duty' and 'absolute lack of integrity' go to show that the disciplinary authority had already arrived at a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner even before initiation of the departmental proceeding.”
Case Name: Mukesh Jalan v. State of Assam
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 45
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that mere non-payment arising out of contractual dealings, without prima facie material showing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception, cannot be treated as offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, who observed,
“…though there are instances of non-fulfillment of promises, the same cannot prima facie be termed as willful intention on the part of the accused-applicant for non-payment. It is seen that the disputes as alleged in the instant case are primarily of civil nature, wherein allegation of breach of several contracts by the accused-applicant is leveled. However, the same cannot be treated prima facie as Cheating or Criminal Breach of Trust on the basis of the materials available before this Court.”
Discharge From Air Force On Grounds Of cumulative Unsuitability; Not A Punishment: Gauhati HC
Case Name : Dwipjyoti Talukdar Vs. The Union of India and Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 46
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that discharge of an airman under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969, based on cumulative red-ink entries reflecting unsuitability for service does not amount to punishment.
Case Name: Prasanta Kumar Borah v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 47
The Gauhati High Court has held that an enquiry resulting in adverse civil consequences against a Gram Pradhan is vitiated if the complaints and foundational materials on which it is based are not disclosed to him, as such non-disclosure renders the opportunity of hearing illusory and violates both executive instruction 162-A and principles of natural justice.
Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, while dealing with the core issue, “whether an enquiry culminating in adverse civil consequences can be sustained when the foundational material on which it rests was not disclosed to the person against whom it is conducted,” stated, “The answer must be negative.”
Case Title: Sri Ram Krishna Dutta & Ors. v. Bimal Phukan @ Bipin Bharali
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 48
The Gauhati High Court has held that prior determination of civil liability under Section 10(2) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 is not required in every case, and is not attracted where no bona fide plea asserting proprietary right, ownership, or lawful possession over the land is raised. In such circumstances, the Land Grabbing Tribunal can proceed with the criminal aspect of the matter without undertaking a separate civil adjudication.
Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “In the present case, it is evident from the records that although the petitioners filed their written objection before the Land Grabbing Tribunal, they did not raise any specific or bona fide plea asserting proprietary right, ownership, or lawful possession over the land in dispute.”