Dismissed

Kundan Bikash Borgohain v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC7 Feb 2020BA/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Gauhati High Court considered an application filed for the release of an accused who had undergone 120 days of custody. Relying on the existence of sufficient incriminating material found in the case diary and the provisions of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, the Court rejected the bail plea.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected and disposed of; no bail was granted.

Kundan Bikash Borgohain Vs the State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC040000872020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : BA 1/2020

¶5

1:Kundan Bikash Borgohain

¶6

aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Ranjan Bikash Borgohain, resident of sukapha Nagar, Moran, PO/PS Moran, Dist. Dibrugarh, Assam

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP represented by the PP of AP

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Chorpok Modi

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 07-02-2020

¶15

Heard Mr. C. Modi, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and Ms. L. Hage, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶16

This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, namely, Shri Kundan Bikash Borgohain, praying bail on behalf of the accused, namely, Shri Ranjan Bikash Borgohain in connection with CB-P.S. Case No.08/2019 under Section 384/385/506/511 IPC read with Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

The learned Addl. PP has produced the Case Diary.

¶19

On a perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused person and it is projected that the accused person is extorting money in the names of various organizations including ULFA(I).

¶20

The accused was arrested on 03.10.2019 and since then he is in the custody. The accused under detention is aged about 60 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the meanwhile, the accused has undergone custody of 120 days.

¶21

The learned Addl. PP has also submitted that in the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has moved the appropriate Court, seeking further police remand of the accused person. Accordingly, it is submitted that the investigation would be hampered, if the accused person named above is released on bail.

¶22

Having regard to the materials available in the Case Diary and in view of the provisions of 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Court is inclined to reject the bail of the accused person at this stage.

¶23

In view of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶24

Case Diary be returned to the learned Addl. PP.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Kundan Bikash Borgohain v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Bikash Borgohain v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Lige Ori Vs the State of A.P.

Jobom Chang Mengu Vs The State of Ap

Gocham Kojum Vs The State of Ap

Chatam Tara Vs the State of Ap

Toku Tapum Vs The Cjm cum Civil Judge Sr Divn and 5 Ors.

Smti Yame Tatin Vs the State of A.P.