Bhoirab Jyoti Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

1. Heard Ms. P. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Bhoirab Jyoti Gogoi, who has been detained behind the bars since 15.05.2025 (for the last 62 days) in connection with Mathurapur Police Station Case No. 04/2025, under Sections 308(4)/331(4)/318(4)/111(2) of BNS r/w Sections 25(1-A)/35 of Arms Act.

¶17

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 09.03.2025 one Dipankar Baruah had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Mathurapur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner along with two other persons namely father of the informant and told them that they will help the father of the informant to avail loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from ICICI Bank so that he can repay the earlier two outstanding loans of Rs.9,11,123/- and Rs. 2,67,346/-. It is alleged that after paying the earlier outstanding loan the petitioner and other accused persons took an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the father of the informant. It is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner also threatened the informant and his parents by showing a gun that he will kill them if the matter is disclosed anyone else.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner relates to the year 2021. However, the FIR has been lodged in the year 2025 without showing any justification for the delay. She also submits that no arm and ammunition was seized from the possession of the present petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has behind the bars for the last 62 days and considering the period of

¶19

Page No.# 3/4

¶20

detention, he may be allowed to go on bail.

¶21

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Mathurapur Police Station Case No. 04/2025 and has submitted that there is sufficient incriminating materials to show that the present petitioner has extorted money from the father of the informant on various occasions. He, however, fairly submitted that as regards the allegations of offence under the Arms Act is concerned, much materials are not available in the case diary and nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner.

¶22

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and gone through the case diary of Mathurapur Police Station Case No. 04/2025 which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶23

7. Though there are some materials against the petitioner as regards taking money from the father of the informant. However, regarding the allegation of threatening the informant and his family members by showing a gun except the oral statements of the informant, nothing is found in the record. No arms and ammunition has been seized from the possession of the present petitioner. Moreover, considering progress made in the investigation as well as the period of detention already undergone (62 days), this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates with the investigation, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fail completion of investigation of the Mathurapur Police Station Case No. 04/2025.

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

8. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Charaideo, Sonari, Assam with following conditions that:-

¶26

(i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation; and

¶27

(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.

¶28

9. Send back the case diary.

¶29

10. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Bhoirab Jyoti Gogoi v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoirab Jyoti Gogoi v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arup Kumar Pathak Vs Dharani Dhar Nath and Anr.

Sri Paramesh Mallick Vs D. G Pharma and Anr.

Guneshwar Bharali @ Guneswar Bharali Vs the State of Nagaland

Ebrahim Ali @ Ibrahim Ali Vs the State of Assam

Mintu Mishra Alias Minal Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Khalek Vs the State of Assam