A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva today briefly heard Advocate Shahrukh Alam for the petitioner. The Court was informed that the CBI is yet to file a counter. Shahrukh submitted that three inquiries against the police officers have taken place, including by the High Court and by the amicus, but the petitioner doesn't have any access to the records. She added that the Police Accountability Commission also did some inquiry, the report of which is also not shared.

On this, the Court ordered all three reports to be shared with the counsel. However, the respondent counsel objected to sharing the amicus's report. The Court dismissed the objections and ordered that the entire record should be shared. "Secure the entire record on the file of the Gauhati High Court. Learned counsel for the State shall also place on record all relevant materials, GD Diaries, along with the CCTV footage by way of pen drive. Interim order to continue."

As per the brief facts, the petitioner has challenged the High Court's order dated September 19, 2025, wherein it refused her prayer for transfer of the investigation to CBI, a court-monitored investigation, along with a grant of compensation.

The petitioner has made serious allegations that the deceased, Gogoi, was subjected to repeated illegal detention and third-degree torture in 2023 by personnel of Titabar and Jorhat Sardar Police stations, under the direct supervision and involvement of the then SP, in connection with a grenade blast near an Army cantonment at Lichubari in December 2023 and his alleged association with the banned United Liberation Front of Assam. It is claimed that because of the continuous physical torture and mental humiliation, the deceased died by suicide.

The petitioner lodged a complaint leading to the registration of the First Information Report against the then SP. It is stated that the investigation led by the State police was marred by bias. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the first final report filed by the police and directed a re-investigation by senior police personnel.

Then, a second final report was filed on April 30, 2025, but it is alleged that it was in violation of the earlier order of the Magistrate, as no senior-ranking police officer was appointed. But based on the second report, the Magistrate ordered the registration of a complaint case.

In the meantime, the petitioner had already approached the High Court seeking the transfer of the investigation. The High Court appointed an amicus curiae, who, in his report, orally stated that the case diary had been tampered with by the police as stated in the special leave petition. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the plea raised by the petitioner.

"It is respectfully submitted that in a case involving serious allegations of custodial torture by senior police officers leading to death—where the state investigation is vitiated by bias, conflict of interest, and tampering—the High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct a CBI investigation or constitution of an independent SIT, so as to restore public confidence and ensure justice,” the plea stated

Case Details: RIMLY GOGOI SAIKIA v THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS|SLP(Crl) No. 7731/2026