Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Utpal Gogoi @ Dhan vs The State Of Assam on 6 December, 2022

                                                                       Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010236392022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./3153/2022

              UTPAL GOGOI @ DHAN
              S/O BHUDHAR GOGOI
              R/O PULI NAHARONI GAON
              P.S. BIHPURIA
              DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM



              VERSUS

              THE STATE OF ASSAM
              REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. U J SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                          ORDER

06.12.2022.

Heard Mr. UJ Saikia, learned Counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is Page No.# 2/4 preferred by accused, namely, Utpal Gogoi @ Dhan, who is languishing in jail hazot since 18.06.2022, in connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.262/2022, under Section 120(B)/121/121(A) of the IPC, read with Sections 10/13/15(1)(a)/17/18/18(B) of the UA(P) Act, read with Section 66(F) of the I.T. Act, corresponding to G.R. Case No.564/2022 (Sessions Case No.48(NL)/2022), for granting bail.

The said case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R., lodged by Uddhab Nath, Inspector of Police, on 25.05.2022, to the effect that he came to know from reliable source that some newly recruited ULFA(I) cadres, namely, 1) Smti Samistha Saikia, 2) Sri Jayanta Saikia, 3) Sri Paban Saikia, 4) Smti Ranku Bhuyan and 5) Sri Babul Gogoi are found to be directly involved in canvassing and recruiting youths from different parts of Lakhimpur District to join in the banned ULFA(I) organization by engaging some local youths through social media, such as face book, etc. Mr. Saikia, learned Counsel for the accused submits that the accused is behind the bar for last 169 days and that one co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 24.08.2022, in B.A. No.2029/2022 and that the name of the accused person finds no mention in the FIR and the I.O. has applied for extension of the period of detention only, after completion of 90 days which is impermissible and that the accused is innocent and he has given only a like comment in his Facebook account to a video uploaded in the Facebook by someone else, therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

On the other hand, Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has produced the case diary before this Court and fairly submits that the I.O. has failed to collect sufficient materials against the accused.

Page No.# 3/4 Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary with the assistance of Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

It appears that the accused was arrested on 18.06.2022 and since then, he is behind the bar for last 170 days. It further appears that the name of the petitioner is not there in the FIR and it also appears from the grounds of arrest, mentioned in the forwarding report dated 18.06.2022, that he has posted some message supporting banned ULFA(I) organization, which encourages others to join in the said organization.

It also appears from the case diary that material parts of investigation is almost over and considering the materials, collected so far in the case diary, this Court is of the view that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the allegation made in the FIR, against the present accused person is prima facie true and as such, the bar under Section 43(D)(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 would not stand in the way of enlarging the accused person on bail, at this stage.

Having considered above and also the submission of learned Advocates for the parties, this Court is inclined to allow this petition and accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees two five thousands) only, with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Session Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur, the accused person, named above, shall be enlarged on bail, in connection with the Sessions Case No.48(NL)/2022.

In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

The case diary be returned.

Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant