Majida Khatun And Ors. vs. The State Of Assam
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Majida Khatun and others, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation by the GST authorities. The Gauhati High Court, by an order dated August 28, 2026, had directed the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Authority on or before September 15, 2026, to participate in the investigation. The anticipatory bail petitions were closed subject to this appearance. The petitioners subsequently filed an interlocutory application seeking an extension, citing the sudden illness of the grandchild of petitioner No. 1, who is the child of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, as the reason for their inability to appear within the stipulated period. The Court was not entirely convinced by the reasons provided.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioners' submission regarding the illness of the child. While not entirely convinced by the reasons presented, the Court, in the interest of the investigation which requires the petitioners' appearance, decided to grant a further period of 5 days for them to appear before the Investigating Officer. This extension is granted up to October 5, 2026, on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the earlier order dated August 28, 2026, in AB No. 2006/2026. The interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly. The Court's decision hinges on facilitating the ongoing investigation by ensuring the petitioners' participation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should grant an extension of time for the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Authority, considering the reasons provided for their non-appearance. The petitioner argued that due to the sudden illness of the child of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 (and grandchild of petitioner No. 1), they were unable to appear before the Investigating Officer within the period granted by the Court's previous order dated 28.08.2026. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the provided judgment regarding this application.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 30-09-2026 Heard Mr. S.M. Mollah, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. By the Order dated 28.08.2026, the petitioner had been granted the opportunity to appear before the Investigating Authority on or before 15.09.2026, requiring them to participate in the investigation process. The Anticipatory Bail Petitions were closed. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to the sudden illness of the child of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, who is also the grandchild of the petitioner No. 1, they could not appear before the Investigating Officer during the aforesaid period. This Court is not entirely convinced with the reasons given. However, keeping in view the interest of the investigation, which needs to proceed and where the appearance of the petitioners would be essential, I am inclined to grant a further period of 5 (five) days to the petitioners i.e., upto the 05.10.2026 to appear before the Investigating Officer on the same terms and conditions as were there in the Order dated 28.08.2026 in AB No. 2006/2026. Interlocutory Application accordingly is disposed of.
Page No.# 3/3
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.