Disposed

Anosh Narzary and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 Jul 2025AB/1344/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in an elephant-poaching case involving wildlife and arms offences. The court found no concrete material against them beyond suspicion, noted co-accused already had bail, and directed them to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days with conditional bail upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Conditional pre-arrest bail: appear before IO within 10 days; if arrested, bail of Rs. 50,000 each with like surety subject to stated conditions.

Anosh Narzary and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010127572025

2025:GAU-AS:9202

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/1344/2025

¶6

ANOSH NARZARY AND ANR S/O LATE ROHON NARZARY, R/O VILL- DWIKORGURI (HATIMARA), P.O. KOLAMOILA P.S. AMGURI, PIN-783393 DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM PH. NO. 8811027627

¶7

2: SUJIT BASUMATARY S/O WELL BASUMATARY R/O VILL- JOYPUR BAHMARA P.O. MALIVITA P.S. AMGURI

¶8

DIST. CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-783393 PH. NO. 789685923 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI, MR. R B GOHAIN

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : SPECIAL PP ASSAM,

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

16.07.2025

¶16

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶17

2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Anosh Narzary and 2. Sujit Basumatary, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Amguri P.S. Case No. 10/2025, under Sections 61(2)/325 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 51(1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Sections 25(1-A)/27/35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶18

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 20.05.2025, one Pankaj Doley, SI of Police of Amguri P.S. had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Amguri Police Station inter alia alleging that on receipt of an information through credible sources that the accused persons named in the FIR (13 numbers of accused persons) including the present petitioners are involved in organized poaching activities within the Manas National Park.

¶19

4. It is alleged that the poachers remained inside the park and have hunted elephants by using Smooth Bore Muzzle Loading (SBML) firearms.

¶20

5. It is also alleged that in that respect one Joten Narzary, led to the recovery of a poached elephant carcass and bones in the Mwinaguri

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

region of Amteka Range on 19.05.2025.

¶23

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present petitioners are not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR and they have been named only on the basis of suspicion as their names appears in an earlier FIR which was registered as Amguri P.S. Case No. 9/2025 was registered.

¶24

7. He submits that no recovery of any wildlife material or firearms has been made from the present petitioners. He further submits that two of the named accused namely, Prosen Basumatary and Tarjen Basumatary have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court.

¶25

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to co-operate in the investigation and therefore, prays for allowing them to go on anticipatory bail.

¶26

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Amguri P.S. Case No. 10/2025, and has submitted that on the basis of statement of one of the co-accused namely, Joten Narzary, elephant carcass and Smooth Bore Muzzle Loading (SBML) firearms have been recovered. He further submits that two of the witnesses whose statements are recorded by the Investigating Officer have named the present petitioners of having being involved in Wildlife offences. He submits that the investigation is still going on and considering the fact that the offences involved are offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

¶29

11. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that at the present stage, nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioners, though two witnesses have specifically named the petitioners of having being involved in offences of elephant hunting, in connection with Amguri P.S. Case No . 9/2025, however, in respect of the present case, i.e. Amguri P.S. Case No. 10/2025, apart from strong suspicion, at this stage no concrete materials are available in the Case Diary against the petitioners.

¶30

12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioners co-operate in the investigation, their custodial interrogation may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Amguri P.S. Case No. 10/2025.

¶31

13. More so, as two of the co-accused situated similarly have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court, in view of the above, the above-named petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Amguri P.S. Case No. 10/2025, within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If they do so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of their arrest in connection with the above-noted case, they shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions that:-

¶32

(i) the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Police

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

Officer within 10(ten) days from the date of this order and shall cooperate with the investigation; and

¶35

(ii) the petitioners 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.

¶36

(iii) the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chirang, Kajalgaon during the pendency of the investigation without prior leave of the said Court.

¶37

14. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

15. Send back the Case Diary.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Anosh Narzary and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anosh Narzary and Anr. v. the State of Assam

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

Ebrahim Ali @ Ibrahim Ali Vs the State of Assam

Mintu Mishra Alias Minal Vs the State of Assam

Bhoirab Jyoti Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Shri Partha Pratim Hazarika Vs the State of Assam

Sahanoor Rahman Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam

Jarip Ali Vs the State of Assam