{"id":265907,"date":"1996-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996"},"modified":"2016-05-06T03:28:01","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T21:58:01","slug":"the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar … vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar … vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1925, JT 1996 (5)\t 88<\/div>\n
Author: S Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE SECRETARY,HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, S.C. (J)\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 1925\t\t  JT 1996 (5)\t 88\n 1996 SCALE  (4)290\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nSEN, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This case\tarises out  of a notice issued to A K. Sinha
\nCassyap, Superintendent\t of Police, Hailakandi to show cause
\nwhy he\tshould not  be held guilty of Contempt of Court. The
\nallegation against  the contemner is that a shocking case of
\npolice brutality  leading to  the  death  of  an  undertrial
\nprisoner was sought to be covered up by him by an untrue and
\nmisleading report  sent to  this Court\tfollowed by  a false
\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n
     The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association, forwarded to
\nthis  Court   a\t copy\tof  the\t resolution  passed  by\t the
\nAssociation at an emergent meetings held on 16th March, 1993
\ncondemning the\tbrutal assault\tleading to  the death  of an
\nundertrial prisoner Nurul Haque.\n<\/p>\n
     Having regard  to the  serious nature of the complaint,
\nthis Court  by an  order dated\t20th August, 1993 decided to
\ntreat the copy of the resolution forwarded by the Secretary,
\nHailakandi Bar Association as Writ Petition under Article 32<\/a>
\nof the\tConstitution  of  India.  The  Director\t General  of
\nPolice, State  of Assam,  was directed\tto inquire  into the
\nmatter and  send a  detailed report  in regard to the events
\nleading to  the death  of Nurul\t Haque. Pursuant to the said
\norder, the  Director General  of Police forwarded his report
\nunder letter  No.C-150\/91\/107 dated 13th September, 1993. In
\nthe letter it was stated that the Director General of police
\ngot the matter investigated by the Superintendent of Police,
\nHailakandi, who\t prepared a  report which  was forwarded  to
\nthis Court  along with\ta  medical  certificate\t dated\t10th
\nMarch, 1993  and particulars of medical examination of Nurul
\nHaque done  on 11th  March, 1993.  In the report prepared by
\nthe Superintendent  of Police,\tit was\tspecifically stated,
\n“Nurul Haque  neither died  in police  lock-up nor in police
\ncustody.  He   died  while   in\t judicial   custody  as\t UTP
\n(undertrial prisoner). He was not tortured during the period
\nof police custody.”\n<\/p>\n
     To say  the least, the report was not satisfactory. The
\ninconsistency in  the statement\t of facts made in the report
\nwas pointed  out in  the Order\tof  this  Court\t dated\t24th
\nJanuary, 1994. It was noted in the Order that the report of
\nthe Superintendent  of Police  that “the P.M. Report did not
\nindicate  any  external\t injury\t over  the  dead  body”\t was
\nfactually incorrect  and misleading.  The Superintendent  of
\nPolice, A.K. Sinha Cassyap, was asked to explain the same by
\naffidavit and  he stated  the word  ‘not’ had  inadvertently
\nappeared for which he tendered apology. This explanation was
\nalso found  to be  unsatisfactory. It  was pointed  out that
\ndeletion of  not’  will\t leave\tthe  sentence  grammatically
\nincorrect. The\tsenior police officers were reminded to show
\nextra care while forwarding their comments to this Court and
\nnot to\tmechanically forward  the information  collected  by
\ntheir subordinates.  The Court\thad called for the report of
\nthe Director  General of  Police because  the Court  reposed
\nconfidence in  the objectivity\tof a  person holding  such a
\nhigh office.  It was further noted in the Order that another
\ndisturbing feature  of the  case was  that  the\t police\t had
\nregistered the\toffence under  Section\t302<\/a>  I.P.C.  against
\nunknown members\t of the\t public. The  story given out by the
\npolice that the members of the public had beaten Nurul Haque
\nbefore he was apprehended by the police was not borne out by
\nthe reaction  of the  public and  also the  Bar\t Association
\nwhich had  taken up  the cause\tof Nurul  Haque. Neither the
\nreport of  medical examination\tdone on 12th March, 1993 nor
\nthe laboratory\treport on  the viscera\thad been  forwarded.
\nHaving regard  to the  facts and especially to the fact that
\nthe deceased had suffered a fracture, the possibility of the
\ninjuries having been caused by the police could not be ruled
\nout altogether. It was ordered:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Since  the  local\t police\t at  the
\n     highest level  have taken\ta  stand
\n     that the  assault on  the\tdeceased
\n     was by  members of\t the public  and
\n     not   the\t  police    after    the
\n     apprehension of the deceased, it is
\n     futile to expect an independent and
\n     wholly objective  investigation  by
\n     the State\tPolice. Even  otherwise,
\n     the   people   will   have\t  little
\n     confidence in  the investigation no
\n     matter how honest and objective the
\n     investigation    be.     In     the
\n     circumstances,  we\t  deem\tit  most
\n     appropriate that  the investigation
\n     of\t the  crime  in\t regard\t to  the
\n     murder of\tthe  deceased  under  CR
\n     Case   No.275\/93\t and\/or\t  F.I.R.
\n     No.120\/93 should  be undertaken  by
\n     the Central Bureau of Investigation
\n     (CBI). In\tdoing so,  the CBI  will
\n     bear in  mind the allegation of the
\n     wife and  other  relations\t of  the
\n     deceased that he died on account of
\n     the beating  given to him after his
\n     apprehension on  9.3.1993,\t without
\n     being influenced  by the  fact that
\n     in\t the  F.I.R.  No.120\/93,  it  is
\n     alleged that the assault was by the
\n     members of the public.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The  Registrar   General  will
\n     write a  letter to\t the Director of
\n     CBI to take immediate steps to take
\n     over the investigation of the crime
\n     from the  local police  and try  to
\n     complete the  same at an early date
\n     and  bring\t the  real  culprits  to
\n     book. This\t petition will\tstand so
\n     disposed of.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After  the\t Writ  Petition\t was  disposed\tof  on\t24th
\nJanuary, 1994.\ta report was received from Superintendent of
\npolice, CBI, SPE Division, Silchar. Along with the report he
\nsent a\tforwarding letter  dated 5th  June, 1995 in which he
\nstated that  the disdainful  role played  by Shri A.K. Sinha
\nCassyap,  the  then  Superintendent  of\t Police,  Hailakandi
\nDistrict, was  against all  tenets of  law and\tmorality. He
\nsubmitted a false\/fabricated affidavit\/report to the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court.\tThe falsity  of his  report submitted to the
\nHon’ble Supreme\t Court is  evident in every sentence, if not
\nevery word  of the  report of  said Shri A.K. Sinha Cassyap,
\nS.P. On consideration of the letter and the report submitted
\nby the\tSuperintendent of  Police, CBI,\t a Show Cause Notice
\nwas served  upon A.K. Sinha Cassyap for showing cause why he
\nshould not  be punished\t for the  criminal contempt  of this
\nCourt for  filing a false and fabricated report\/affidavit in
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Since the allegation against Shri A.K. Sinha Cassyap is
\nthat he\t had given  an\tuntrue\treport\tand  filed  a  false
\naffidavit about\t the death  of Nurul  Haque to\tmislead\t the
\nCourt, it  is necessary\t to set\t out the  facts found by the
\nSuperintendent of  Police, Central  Bureau of Investigation,
\nin detail.\n<\/p>\n
     On 9th  March, 1993  being Tuesday was a market day. It
\nwas the\t month of  Ramzan. Nurul Haque, resident of Boalipar
\nunder P.S.  Hailakandi, was  coming  back  from\t the  market
\ntowards his house at about 7.00\/7.30 P.M. He was 35 years of
\nage and\t in good  health. A  Police party,  led by Abdul Hye
\nChoudhury, S.I.,  arrested Nurul  Haque. His house was about
\n400 yards  from the  market.  As  per  the  version  of\t eye
\nwitnesses, Nurul  Haque was  overpowered by  S.I. Abdul\t Hye
\nChoudhury and party, who were all in plain clothes, and took
\nhim into a Police Jeep to Hailakandi Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
     Although the Police later claimed that Nurul Haque\t was
\nassaulted by  members of  the public  at  the  time  of\t the
\narrest, neither\t the  villagers\t nor  relatives\t nor  market
\npeople, who  were eye witnesses to the incident, noticed any
\nsuch assault,  nor was there any record of Nurul Haque being
\ntreated for injury on 9th March, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
     On 10th  March, 1993,  in\tthe  early  morning,  Azizur
\nRahman, brother\t of Nurul Haque, his wife and mother went to
\nmeet Nurul  Haque at Hailakandi Police Station, but were not
\nallowed to  meet him. On 11th March, 1993, Azizur Rahman and
\nsome other relatives of Nurul Haque went to the Court of the
\nChief Judicial\tMagistrate, Hailakandi, where they met Nurul
\nHaque, who  told them that he had been brutally beaten up by
\nS.I. Abdul  Hye Choudhury,  Roy Daroga\t(Rajan Roy S.I.) and
\nHome Guard  Dalim in the lock-up. On 11th March, 1993, Nurul
\nHaque was  produced before  the Chief  Judicial\t Magistrate,
\nHailakandi, with  a prayer for 72 hours police remand It was
\nalso prayed  that since Nurul Haque was assaulted by members
\nof the\tpublic, medical\t treatment may\tbe provided to Nurul
\nHaque. The prayer was granted.\n<\/p>\n
     Even before  this, on  10th March, 1993 Nurul Haque had
\nbeen taken  to Hailakandi  Civil Hospital at about 5.30 P M.
\nfor treatment.\tHe was\tbrought back  to the  Police Station
\nafter  receiving  treatment.  Dr.  M.L.\t Bhattacherjee,\t the
\nMedical Officer\t on duty,  examined the patient and recorded
\nhis findings in the Emergency Register as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “(i) Abrasion in cheek 1 cm x 1 cm.
\n     This  may\t be  caused   either  by
\n     hitting of\t a blunt  object  or  by
\n     falling.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) One  abrasion in  left leg 2’5
\n     cm x  1 cm.  This might  be due  to
\n     fall or some blunt object.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) Abrasion on fore-head, 2 cm x
\n     2 cm.  It may  be due  to the  same
\n     reason as mentioned earlier.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) Deep\ttenderness on right leg.
\n     The patient was complaining that he
\n     was having\t a severe  pain on right
\n     leg. As  far as  he remembers  this
\n     was just below the medial side. But
\n     there was no external injury at the
\n     spot.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The patient  complained that  he had  been beaten up by
\nthe police.  The police\t said that  he was  a dacoit and was
\nbrought for  medical  treatment\t after\tarrest.\t The  Doctor
\nadvised X-Ray,\tA.P. and lateral view of right Tibia and the
\nFibula. The  Doctor noticed that all the injuries were fresh
\nand had\t been received\twithin 24  hours.  The\tpatient\t was
\nhealthy and could walk freely with a slight limp for pain on
\nthe right leg. The patient was treated at Emergency Ward for
\nabout 15  minutes and  then discharged. As the X-Ray machine
\nof the\tCivil Hospital\twas not in order, the Doctor advised
\nthe police  party to  get a  X-Ray done\t outside.  There  is
\nnothing on  record to  show that  Nurul Haque  was given any
\ntreatment thereafter  nor any  X-Ray was  done as advised by
\nthe Doctor. But, he was interrogated thoroughly.\n<\/p>\n
     On 11th  March, 1993 at 1.15 P.M. Nurul Haque was taken
\nfrom  Hailakandi   Police  Station  to\tCivil  Hospital\t for
\ntreatment. The\tDoctor on duty, Dr. H.A. Ahmed, recorded the
\nfollowing injuries suffered by the patient:\n<\/p>\n
     “(i) One  lascerated injury present
\n     over the left thumb of size 2’5cm x
\n     l’5cm x skin deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) One  abrasion\t over  the  left
\n     forearm at\t middle third  of size 1
\n     cm x 2 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) One abrasion present over the
\n     left arm of size 2’5cm x 2cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) One  abrasion present over the
\n     left leg.\tOver the tibin of size 2
\n     cm x 2 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v) One  lascerated  wound\t present
\n     over the  right leg  at upper third
\n     over tibia\t of size l’5cm x l’5cm x
\n     bone  deep\t  and\tcausing\t  severe
\n     tenderness.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     At 2.15  P.M. Nurul  Haque was  brought back  from\t the
\nhospital and  kept in  the lock-up of the Police Station. He
\nwas  produced\tbefore\tthe   Chief   Judicial\t Magistrate,
\nHailakandi, on\t12th March,  1993, with a prayer for holding
\nTest Identification  Parade. The  prayer was allowed. In the
\norder of  the Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, it was
\nrecorded that  Nurul Haque  had been given medical treatment
\nand that  the jail  doctor should provide treatment to Nurul
\nHaque. The jail doctor checked Nurul Haque and found that he
\nwas suffering  from multiple  injuries and  due to  lack  of
\nfacilities  he\treferred  the  patient\tto  Civil  Hospital,
\nHailakandi. At\t6.45 P.M. Nurul Haque was once again brought
\nto Hailakandi  Civil Hospital.\tHe was taken to the Casualty
\nWard. In  the Casualty Ward Register it was recorded that he
\nwas  suffering\t from  multiple\t  injury.  Dr.\tTapan  Kumar
\nBhattacharjee was  the doctor  on duty. However, later on an
\nextra word  ‘old’ was  inserted in  between  ‘multiple’\t and
\n‘injury’ to  give a  wrong impression  about the period when
\nthe injuries  were suffered. He was admitted at 7.20 P.M. in
\nthe Indoor  Ward. In  the treatment  report, the time of the
\ninjury was  apparently corrected  from 12 hours to 40 hours.
\nIt was\trecorded that  the patient  was\t healthy  and  fully
\nconscious and the following injuries were found:-\n<\/p>\n
     “(i) One  lascerated injury in left
\n     thumb.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) One  abrasion over  left forum
\n     at middle third.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) One abrasion over left arm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) One  abrasion\t over  left  leg
\n     over Tibin.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v) One  lascerated injury\t present
\n     in the  right leg\tupper  third  to
\n     Tibia.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  And  the   all  injuries  were
\n     found infected  and  there\t was  no
\n     record\/report available  for having
\n     conducted X-ray examination.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The patient received some treatment but he collapsed on
\n13th March,  1993 at  5.25 A.M.\t Dr. Gautam  Pal, who was on
\nduty, noted  that the  patient was deeply unconscious, pulse
\nrate rapid  and thready,  blood pressure  could not be felt.
\nThe patient  was injected  Decadrum, a\tlife saving drug. He
\nwas put\t on oxygen  and cardiac\t massage was  also given. At
\n5.30 A.M. Nurul Haque died.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Superintendent   of  Hailakandi   Civil   Hospital
\ninformed the Superintendent, District Jail, Hailakandi, that
\nthe  undertrial\t  prisioner  Nurul  Haque  admitted  on\t the
\nprevious day  with the multiple injuries had expired at 5.30
\nA.M. on\t 13th March,  1993 due to Cardio Respiratory failure
\nas per\thospital record.  The death was also recorded in the
\nUndertrial Prisioners  Register of Hailakandi District Jail.
\nThe deadbody  was sent\tfor burial.  There was\tno record of
\nintimating family members.\n<\/p>\n
     Hailakandi police\tregistered a  case under Section 302<\/a>
\nIPC in\trespect of  the death  of Nurul\t Haque\tagainst\t the
\nmembers of  the public\ton the\tbasis of  complaint filed by
\nS.I. A.H.  Choudhury. The  case was  to be  investigated  by
\nDinanda\t Phukan.  O.C.\tThe  inquest  was  conducted  by  N.
\nBorborah, S.I.,\t Hailakandi Police  Station on\t13th  March,
\n1993 in the Civil Hospital. There were eight injuries in the
\nlower portion  of the  right hand,  in the  right hand joint
\netc. There  was swelling  and lasceration  in the right hand
\nand also  the right side of the waist. There was swelling on
\nthe right and left knees.\n<\/p>\n
     On 14th March, 1993 the deadbody was sent to Hailakandi
\nCivil Hospital for post mortem examination which was done by
\nDr. S.R. Roy who was only an L.M.F. doctor and not qualified
\nfor the job. According to his finding the injuries were ante
\nmortem in  nature and  the  death  was\tdue  to\t Mayocardial
\nInfraction with heart failure.\n<\/p>\n
     The deadbody  was collected  and sent to family members
\nof Nurul  Haque. It  was refused  by the family members. The
\nSuperintendent of  District Jail,  Hailakandi, wrote  to the
\nC.J.M., Hailakandi,  that as  the relatives  of the deceased
\nwere unwilling\tto take\t the deadbody  for burial, he may be
\nallowed to  dispose of\tthe deadbody as per Jail Manual Rule
\nand Muslim  Religious Rite.  The prayer\t was allowed  by the
\nC.J.M.\n<\/p>\n
     On 15th  March, 1993,  the\t Superintended\tof  District
\nJail, Hailakandi,  requested the  C.J.M. that no relative of
\nthe deceased  had come\tto take\t the deadbody from the Civil
\nHospital for  burial. The  deadbody was\t getting  decomposed
\ngradually and  bad smell  coming out  from it.\tA prayer was
\nmade for disposal of the body as per Muslim Religious Rites.
\nThe prayer  was allowed.  The wife  of the  deceased, Fatema
\nBegum, filed  an application  for recalling the order and to
\npass order  for the  post mortem examination of the deadbody
\nby a medical team in Silchar  Medical  College.\t The  C.J.M.
\ncalled for  a report from the Jail Superintendent about the.
\ndisposal of  the deadbody  immediately.\t The  Superintendent
\nreported that  the deadbody was sent to Government land near
\nBasic Training\tCentre, but the public of that area strongly
\nobjected to  the burial\t of the\t deadbody. The\tdeadbody was
\nlying in front of Police Station Hailekandi at the time when
\nthe matter was reported.\n<\/p>\n
     The C.J.M. thereupon passed an order on the application
\nof the widow of Nurul Haque and noted the fact that a number
\nof lawyers appeared in his court and prayed for further post
\nmortem examination  at Silchar\tMedical College.  The C.J.M.
\nthereupon directed  the deadbody  to be\t sent to Silchar for
\nfurther medical\t examination. The  wife of  the deceased was
\ndirected to  accompany the deadbody and take delivery of the
\ndeadbody after\tpost mortem  was over.\tOn 16th March, 1993,
\nthe deadbody  was brought to Silchar Medical College and the
\npost mortem  was conducted by Dr. B.K. Barah carried out the
\npost mortem  examination and  sent the\tviscera for  further
\nexamination. In\t the report of the Superintendent of Police,
\nCBI, it has been stated:-\n<\/p>\n
     ” ….an  accused who  was arrested
\n     in healthy\t condition  was\t a  dead
\n     person at\tthe hands  of police and
\n     the attending doctors. They neither
\n     gave him  food nor\t proper\t medical
\n     treatment throughout  this\t period.
\n     In the C.D. of the I. O. nowhere it
\n     is mentioned  that he  was provided
\n     with even a glass of water, less to
\n     say  of   food.  Despite\trepeated
\n     suggestion of the doctor to get him
\n     X-rayed,  no  X-ray  was  got  done
\n     though his right leg was fractured.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The inevitable result was the death
\n     of deceased Nurul Haque at the hand
\n     of the  Police to\twhich all others
\n     including\t  doctors     and    the
\n     Magistracy lent  support. The cause
\n     of death  was ostensibly  shown  as
\n     Cardiac Respiratory  Failure  which
\n     was not a correct fact The deceased
\n     had no  history of Cardiac problem,
\n     nor any  ECG of  him was  got  done
\n     during his\t police custody\t nor  he
\n     had  ever\t complained  about  this
\n     problem  to   the\tpolice\tHowever,
\n     anything could  have happened  to a
\n     person   subjected\t   to\tphysical
\n     torture, shock  and lack  of sleep,
\n     lack of  food and\thaving been kept
\n     in the lock-up for last 72 hours.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Commenting\t  on\tthe   report\tsubmitted   by\t the
\nSuperintendent of  Police, Hailakandi, to this Court, it has
\nbeen stated:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The report  submitted by the S.P.,
\n     Hailakandi,     is\t     full     of
\n     inaccuracies, lack\t of evidence and
\n     false instances  some of  which are
\n     as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1)\t  Para 1,  page-l of  the report
\n     says that\tBheru Mia,  Akkadas  Ali
\n     and  others   have\t confessed  that
\n     under the leadersbip of Nurul Haque
\n     they committed 5\/6 dacoities cannot
\n     be proved\tand name  of Nurul Haque
\n     does  not\tappear\tin  any\t of  the
\n     charge sheet  or FIR  of the  cases
\n     The above\tmentioned  persons  were
\n     examined by  the I.O.  and\t by  the
\n     Hon’ble Court  and\t they  have  not
\n     stated the above allegation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2)\t  The  allegation  of  the  S.P.
\n     that  Nurul  Haque\t committed  many
\n     dacoity and  rape in  the\tlocality
\n     and he was beaten by the members of
\n     the public do not have any evidence
\n     to support it. That he was arrested
\n     on\t 10.3.93   is  also   wrong  and
\n     clearly shows wrongful confinement,
\n     The  C.J.M.,   Hailakandi,\t allowed
\n     police custody for 72 hours and not
\n     24 hours.\tThe statement  of the SP
\n     that   Nurul    Haque   was   again
\n     forwarded to  the Court  on 12.3.93
\n     after completing  his interrogation
\n     is slightly  mistaken because Nurul
\n     Haque  was\t reproduced  before  the
\n     Court only to conduct TIP for which
\n     the  C.J.M.  Hailakandi  fixed  the
\n     date on  15.3.93. The report of the
\n     SP that  the UTP  was  referred  to
\n     Hailakandi Civil Hospital on making
\n     complaint of  chest  pain\tis  also
\n     false\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3)\t  The statement of the S.P. that
\n     the P.M. report revealed that death
\n     was  due  to  Myocardial  Infection
\n     with Heart\t Failure  and  that  the
\n     P.M. report  did not  indicate  any
\n     external injury  over the dead body
\n     is also false as mentioned earlier.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4)\t    That   the\tre-post\t  mortem
\n     examination is  conducted by a team
\n     of doctor and that no opinion could
\n     be\t  given\t   because   of\t  highly
\n     decomposed\t   state     is\t    also
\n     wrong\/inaccurate. In  fact the  re-
\n     post   mortem    examination    was
\n     conducted\tby  Police  Surgeon  and
\n     Mediocolegal Expert  Professor B.K.
\n     Borah of S.M.C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5)\t   On para 1 page 3 the S.P. has
\n     written  that   the   viscera   was
\n     preserved and  sent to  F.S.L.  for
\n     chemical examination is not correct
\n     because  it   was\tnever\tsent  to
\n     S.F.S.L.  It   was\t kept\tat  P.S.
\n     Hailakandi only.  Recently, it  has
\n     been  traced   at\tPolice\tStation,
\n     Hailakandi, itself\t and  seized  by
\n     CBI and  now it  has been\tsent  to
\n     C.F.S.L. for opinion.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In reply  to the  notice why action should not be taken
\nfor contempt  of court\tagainst him,  A.K. Sinha Cassyap has
\nstated that he never intended to disobey or defy an order of
\nthe Court  or to  mislead the  Court. He  has  tendered\t his
\nunconditional and  unqualified apology for this. It has been
\nstated that  he was  in a  shocked state  of mind because of
\ncertain developments,  particulars of which have been stated
\nin the\taffidavit. He  has referred to a final report of the
\nCBI  dated   24\/25.8.1995  in  which  prosecution  has\tbeen
\nrecommended against  certain police  officers, but so far as
\nA.K. Sinha  Cassyap is\tconcerned,  only  recommendation  is
\nconveying of  displeasure by  Government. It has been stated
\nby A.K.\t Sinha Cassyap that he was on leave at the time when
\nthis incident  took place.  When he  joined service,  he got
\nonly 48\t hours time  to make  his report.  He has  made\t his
\nreport on  the basis  of the  material available.  But\tA.K.
\nSinha Cassyap  has not only sent a report but has also filed
\nan affidavit  pursuant to  the order  of this Court when the
\nreport was  found unsatisfactory. He had ample time to bring
\nthe facts  to the  notice of  the Court\t by that  affidavit.
\nThere is  no explanation for the reason why he did not bring
\nthe true facts to the notice of the Court which was his duty
\nto do,
\n     It is  true that the CBI Report has not recommended any
\ncriminal proceeding  against him. But the allegation against
\nA.K. Sinha Cassyap is that he suppressed true facts from the
\nCourt and  gave a  false report\t to mislead  the Court as to
\nwhat was  the real cause of the death of Nurul Haque. It has
\nbeen stated  by A.K.  Sinha Cassyap  that he had no personal
\nknowledge of the sequence of events from apprehension to the
\ndeath of  Nurul Haque.\tHe had\treturned from  leave and had
\nresumed duty  only in the afternoon on 16th March, 1993 when
\nNurul Haque  had already  died. This explanation on the face
\nof it  is not acceptable. As a responsible police officer it
\nwas his\t duty to make proper investigation and give a report
\nto this Court. Assuming within the time frame of 48 hours he
\ncould not  prepare a  report properly, he should have stated
\nthat in\t his report.  He could\thave even  prayed for longer
\ntime for furnishing a report. But the allegation against him
\nis  that  he  deliberately  gave  a  false  report.  In\t the
\naffidavit filed by him he had ample opportunity to make good
\nthe lapses  made in  the report\t and bring the true facts to
\nthe notice  of the  Court which he did not do. The affidavit
\nfiled by  A.K. Sinha  Cassyap in  this Court  is dated\t26th
\nNovember, 1993 pursuant to the direction given by this Court
\non 29th\t October, 1993.\t As a  responsible police officer it
\nwas his\t duty to bring to the notice of the Court the police
\nbrutality that\thad taken  place and the false documentation
\nthat  was  prepared  by\t the  various  police  personnel  to
\nsuppress the  truth and\t to give  a misleading\tpicture. The
\nglaring inconsistencies\t in the\t affidavit filed by him have
\nbeen pointed  out in  the report  of the CBI, particulars of
\nwhich have  been set out hereinabove. A.K. Sinha Cassyap has
\nnot dealt  with those  particulars. He\thas only stated that
\nthat was  not the  final report of the CBI. The final report
\ndoes not  contain anything  to the contrary to what has been
\nstated in  the report  submitted to this Court. In our view,
\nA.K. Sinha  Cassyap,  the  contemner,  has  committed  gross
\ncontempt of  court by  trying to mislead the Court as to the
\ncause of death of Nurul Haque. He has also tried to cover up
\nthe excesses committed by the police which brought about the
\ndeath of  Nurul Haque  by narrating  untrue facts and giving
\nfalse particulars.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  hold that\tA.K. Sinha Cassyap is guilty
\nof contempt of this Court. The belated apology given by A.K.
\nSinha Cassyap  cannot be  accepted because  it has  not been
\ngiven in good faith. He has tendered this apology only after
\nhis report  was found out to be misleading and his affidavit
\nwas found  to be  false. He had unnecessarily highlighted in
\nhis report that Nurul Haque was a dacoit for which there was
\nno clear evidence. He had stated in his report categorically
\nafter reciting\tsome misleading\t fact, “From the above facts
\nand circumstances,  it is  clear that,\tDacoit, Nurul  Haque
\nneither died  in Police\t Lock-up nor  in Police\t custody. He
\ndied while  in Judicial\t custody as UTP. He was not tortured
\nduring the period of Police custody.”\n<\/p>\n
     A.K. Sinha\t Cassyap has  stated that he had to make his
\nreport on  the basis of the records of the case as he had no
\npersonal knowledge of this case. But the records reveal that
\nthe particulars\t of injuries noted by Dr. H.A. Ahmed on 10th
\nMarch, 1993 at 1.50 P.M. were more than what were noticed by
\nDr. M  L Bhattacharya  on 10th March, 1993 at 5.30 P.M. This
\ncan only  mean that  more injuries  had been  inflicted upon
\nNarul Haque  after he  was examined by Dr. M L Bhattacharya.
\nIt appears  that the  contemner has  ignored even  tell-tale
\nevidence available on the record.\n<\/p>\n
     We are of the view that this was a highly irresponsible
\nreport regardless  of the truth and also against the records
\nof the case. In spite of the nature of the injuries detected
\nand reported  from time\t to  time  by  Various\tdoctors\t who
\nexamined Nurul\tHaque after  his apprehension  by the police
\nand regardless\tof the recommendations for X-ray examination
\nof the\tinjured leg, which was never done, the contemner has
\nboldly reported\t to this  Court that  Nurul  Haque  was\t not
\ntortured during\t the period  of police\tcustody. His  report
\nbegins under  the heading  “Death of  veteran  dacoit  Nurul
\nHaque” and  ends with  the summing  up “Dacoit,\t Nurul Haque
\ndied neither in Police Lock-up nor in Police Custody”.\n<\/p>\n
     This goes\tto show\t that the  contemner was  trying  to
\nhighlight the fact that Nurul Haque was a veteran dacoit and
\npossibly deserved  the treatment  that he got at the hand of
\nthe police. The CBI report indicates that there is no record
\nof any\tconviction of  Nurul Haque  in any dacoity case. Not
\nonly that  the story of saving Nurul Haque from public wrath
\nby the police party on 9th March, 1993 is also not borne out
\nby facts.  He was  not taken  for medical examination on the
\n5th March  immediately after  the  alleged  assault  by\t the
\nmembers of  the public.\t He was\t taken to  Hailakandi  Civil
\nHospital at  5.30 p.m.\ton 10th\t March\twhen  various  fresh
\ninjuries were  noted on\t his body by the doctors. No case of
\nassault was  also registered after rescuing Nurul Haque from
\nalleged public\twrath. This  case was  made only after Narul
\nHaque’s death.\tThe report from the very beginning has tried
\nto mislead the Court as to the cause of death of Nurul Haque
\nand the\t alleged events\t that led to his apprehension by the
\npolice. The  emphasis that  he was a veteran dacoit was also
\nobviously with\ta view\tto create prejudice. Far from trying
\nto help the Court to do justice in this case, his report has
\ntried to  mislead the  Court  and  prevent  the\t Court\tfrom
\nfinding out  the truth about the allegations made by the Bar
\nAssociation of Hailakandi.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  hold that\tthe  contemner\tdeliberately
\nforwarded an  inaccurate report\t with a\t view to  misleading
\nthis Court  and thereby\t interfered with  the due  course of
\njustice by attempting to obstruct this Court from reaching a
\ncorrect conclusion.  In the  facts and\tcircumstances of the
\ncase, we  cannot accept his apology and hereby reject it. We
\nhold him  guilty  of  contempt\tunder  Article\t129<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution read  with Section 12<\/a> of the Contempt of Courts
\nAct, 1971.  Having regard  to the  gravity of  the case,  we
\nsentence the  contemner A.K. Sinha Cassyap to undergo simple
\nimprisonment for  a term  of three months. The contempt rule
\nis disposed of finally as above.\n<\/p>\n
     The Director  General of  Police, Assam  is directed to
\nensure that  this order\t is carried  out forthwith  and\t the
\ncontemner is  taken into custody and imprisoned to serve the
\nsentence. The  Registrar General will communicate this order
\nto Director  General of\t Police, Assam,\t with a direction to
\nreport compliance to him.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar … vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1925, JT 1996 (5) 88 Author: S Sen Bench: Sen, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: THE SECRETARY,HAILAKANDI BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/1996 BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-265907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Secretary,Hailakandi Bar ... vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar ... vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-05T21:58:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar … vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T21:58:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":4783,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996\",\"name\":\"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar ... vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T21:58:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar … vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar ... vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar ... vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-05T21:58:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar … vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T21:58:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996"},"wordCount":4783,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996","name":"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar ... vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T21:58:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretaryhailakandi-bar-vs-state-of-assam-and-another-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Secretary,Hailakandi Bar … vs State Of Assam And Another on 9 May, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265907","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=265907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}