ANWAR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY AND 3 ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Advocate - PP, ASSAM, ,MR. D H MOZUMDER,MR F A LASKAR — Crl.Rev.P./85/2023

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 401. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010027842023

Filing Number

Crl.Rev.P./1277/2023

Filing Date

08-Feb-2023

Registration No

Crl.Rev.P./85/2023

Registration Date

23-Feb-2023

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10261 - Criminal Revisions against orders passed in trial cases ( 219 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 401

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANWAR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY AND 3 ORS

    Adv. MR. M H LASKAR,MR. S ROY,MR. S ROY, ,M. HOSSAIN,MR. S ROY

  2. 2.ABDUL SUKKUR MAZUMDER

  3. 3.ISFAQ HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY

  4. 4.TAJ HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Advocate - PP (Public Prosecutor), ASSAM, ,MR. D H MOZUMDER,MR F A LASKAR

  2. 2.SMT. HUMERA BEGUM BARBHUIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar SharmaView PDF

    Case Summary: Crl.Rev.P./85/2023 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court set aside the trial court's order that had invoked Section 319 CrPC to arraign the four petitioners as accused persons, holding that insufficient evidence existed to meet the stringent standard required for such extraordinary powers. Key Reasoning: Although two prosecution witnesses provided testimony during trial implicating the petitioners, the court found this evidence insufficient because: (1) the same witnesses had made no mention of the petitioners in their earlier statements to the investigating officer; (2) no other witnesses mentioned them; and (3) the trial court failed to assess all available material on record before exercising discretionary powers that must be exercised sparingly and only where strong, cogent evidence exists—not mere probability of complicity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar SharmaView PDF

  5. 21-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Shamima Jahan

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Shamima JahanView PDF

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Shamima JahanView PDF

  8. 14-Oct-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Anjan Moni KalitaView PDF

  9. 05-Aug-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish ChoudhuryView PDF

  10. 22-Jul-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish ChoudhuryView PDF

  11. 22-Jul-2025

    Admission

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

  12. 25-Jun-2025

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

  13. 15-May-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar KalitaView PDF

  14. 14-Dec-2023

    Honourable Mr. Justice Parthivjyoti SaikiaView PDF

  15. 25-Jul-2023

    Honourable Mr. Justice Parthivjyoti SaikiaView PDF

  16. 22-Jun-2023

    Honourable Mr. Justice Parthivjyoti SaikiaView PDF

  17. 22-Jun-2023

    Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Soumitra Saikia

  18. 08-Jun-2023

    Honourable Mr. Justice Soumitra SaikiaView PDF

  19. 23-May-2023

    Hearing

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

  20. 09-May-2023

    Admission

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

  21. 09-May-2023

    Admission

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

  22. 27-Apr-2023

    Orders

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

  23. 27-Mar-2023

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

  24. 27-Mar-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 27-Feb-2023

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

  26. 08-Feb-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.Rev.P./85/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl.Rev.P./85/2023 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court set aside the trial court's order that had invoked Section 319 CrPC to arraign the four petitioners as accused persons, holding that insufficient evidence existed to meet the stringent standard required for such extraordinary powers. Key Reasoning: Although two prosecution witnesses provided testimony during trial implicating the petitioners, the court found this evidence insufficient because: (1) the same witnesses had made no mention of the petitioners in their earlier statements to the investigating officer; (2) no other witnesses mentioned them; and (3) the trial court failed to assess all available material on record before exercising discretionary powers that must be exercised sparingly and only where strong, cogent evidence exists—not mere probability of complicity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case