Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 10 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010197532025
2025:GAU-AS:12490
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2871/2025
RISHIRAJ HAZARIKA ALIAS HUNTU ALIAS DANISH ASOM
SON OF UMA HAZARIKA
VILL- KHELMATI GAON
P.S. MORAN ASSAM
DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SAHARIA, MS K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
10.09.2025
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Saharia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/4
2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Rishiraj Hazarika @Huntu @ Danish Asom, who has been detained behind the bars since 27.06.2025 (for the last 75 days) in connection with Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 02/2025 under Sections 61(2)/147/308(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 29.04.2025, one Dr. Sankar Jyoti Nath, Inspector of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge of Crime Branch Police Station, inter alia, alleging that three accused persons named in the FIR, namely, Y. Nemkha, Yaman Konyak and S. Hangmei Konyak are engaged in conducting operational activities as Overground Worker/linkmen of the prescribed organization ULFA (Independent). It is also alleged that they are also engaged in collection of illegal funds through extortion and also engaged in other illegal activities.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is approaching this Court seeking bail for the second time. His earlier bail application was rejected by this Court on 04.08.2025 in B.A.No. 2308/2025.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner moved the earlier bail application, he had been detained behind the bars for only 38 days. However, now, he is languishing behind the bars for the last 75 days and in the meanwhile, almost 10(ten) of the co-accused persons have already been released on bail.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the main ground for rejection of the earlier bail application was that the accusation made against the petitioner was that he has been involved in the recruitment of fresh recruits in the prescribed ULFA organization and this case stands on a different Page No.# 3/4 footing from the persons to whom bail were granted.
7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co- accused, namely, Tapan Roy against whom also the accusation of recruiting persons in prescribed organization ULFA (I) has been granted bail by a co- ordinate bench of this Court and therefore, he submits that the petitioner stands on the same footing like that of said Tapan Roy and on that ground also, he may be allowed to go on bail.
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public prosecutor has submitted that there are sufficient materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner has also been found involved in connection with another case of similar nature where he has been shown as arrested.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. It appears that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 75 days, out of which he was in police custody for 14(fourteen) days and therefore, there is a presumption that he has been thoroughly interrogated.
10. Further, on perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that though there are sufficient materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary, the investigation as regards his involvement has been fairly progressed.
11. This Court considering the progress in the investigation as well as period of detention undergone by the petitioner is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of the Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 02/2025.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the above-mentioned petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety Page No.# 4/4 of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) with following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer and shall co-operate with the investigation;
(ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court.
13. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.
14. Send back to the Case Diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant