Riju Kanta Pegu Vs the State of Assam

2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Riju Kanta Pegu, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 09.11.2024, in connection with Gohpur P.S. Case No.152/2024 under Section 61(2)(a)/329(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and added Section 111(3) of the BNS, for grant of bail.

¶17

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by S.I. Kamaruddin Ali of Gohpur Police Station on 30.10. 2024. The allegation against the present accused in the FIR dated 30.10.2024 is that the informant came to know from reliable sources that one Ratna Kanta Pegu of village Athaisghoria under Gohpur P.S. conspired with one sharp shooter of Dimapur and one Kiran Pegu, Dwipen Pegu and Tarjan Kutum of Baligaon, Gohpur and Lakshya Pegu of Pichal, Gohpur and some other associates of Majuli for poaching rhino in the 6^th Edition of Kaziranga National Park in the Borchapari area under Gohpur P.S.

¶18

4. Mr. Neog, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 09.11.2024 and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 87 days and that the name of the accused find no mention in the FIR and that he has been arrested on fictitious ground and that the accused is innocent and he is no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and no arms and ammunition has been recovered from his possession and he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶19

5. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials in support of the allegation made in the FIR and that he is in touch with one sharp shooter of Dimapur and some incriminating photographs were also found in his mobile phone and that the investigation is going on and therefore, Mr. Sharma has opposed the petition.

¶20

6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petitioner and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sharma, learned Additional P.P.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

7. It is not in dispute that the accused is behind the bar for last 87 days and in view of the materials collected so far in the case diary against the present accused and also considering the fact that there is least chance of submission of charge-sheet within the stipulated period of 90 days, further considering the period of detention of the accused in jail hazot, his further detention in the interest of investigation seems to be not warranted here in this case and therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

¶23

8. It is provided that on furnishing a bail bond of ` 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Gohpur, the accused, namely, Riju Kanta Pegu, shall be enlarged on bail.

¶24

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

¶25

10. CD be returned.

¶26

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Riju Kanta Pegu v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riju Kanta Pegu 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

Premjit Das Vs the Gauhati University and 3 Ors.

Dr Diganta Baruah Vs the State of Assam

Abir Dutta Vs State of Assam and Anr.

Ahmed Ali Vs the State of Assam

M/S Goels Coir Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Chandra Joy Jamatia Vs the Union of India