Disposed

Bhargob Gogoi v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC6 Feb 2025Bail Appln./96/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three accused detained in a UAPA case involving recovered grenades sought regular bail. The court found case diary materials inadequate to invoke the Section 43D(5) bar, noted arrest without informing grounds violated Section 43B UA(P) Act and that a Sub-Inspector impermissibly investigated Chapter IV offences. Bail granted on bond with surety.

What did the court decide?

Accused enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety of like amount before Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh; case diary to be returned.

Bhargob Gogoi Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010006172025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./96/2025

¶6

BHARGOB GOGOI S/O- JATIN GOGOI, R/O- VILLAGE- AGHUNIBARI, 2 NO. KULI GAON, P.O- LENGERI, P.STINGKHONG, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-785676

¶7

2: UJJAL GOGOI S/O-MUNIN GOGOI R/O- VILLAGE- NATUNNAGAR P.S- MORAN DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶8

3: TAPAN JYOTI PHUKAN S/O- LATE KAMAL CHANDRA PHUKAN

¶9

R/O- VILLAGE- 1 NO. GANDHIYA

¶10

P.O- LENGERI P.S- TINGKHONG DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78661 VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J HATIMURIA, MR. N M DAS,MR. A PHUKAN,MR. M KALITA

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 07.02.2025

¶18

Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶19

This petition, under Section 483, BNSS, 2023 is preferred by three accused, namely, Sri Bhargob Gogoi, Sri Ujjal Gogoi and Sri Tapan Jyoti Phukan, who have been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Moran P.S. Case No. 89/2024, under Sections 61(2)/62/147/148/326(f) of the BNS, read with Sections 4/5/6 of the Explosive Substance Act and added Sections 10/13/17/18/19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, since 22.09.2024, for grant of bail.

¶20

It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by SI(P) Kalpajit Chetia of Moran P.S. on 12.09.2024.

¶21

The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 12.09.2024, is that some miscreants attempted to cause terrorist activities to strike terror among the general public and tried to incite secessionist feelings among the people in order to incite them to wage a war against India, thereby threatening the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, and that they had secretly hidden explosive substances in between Khatkhati bypass road and Torajan area, under Moran P.S. and after a search operation at Jotiyoni area, two numbers of green coloured suspected bottle grenades were recovered and seized.

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused persons were arrested on 22.09.2024 and since then, they have been languishing in jail hazot for last 126 days. Mr. Kalita also submits that the accused are innocent and they were arrested only on suspicion, and Sections 10/13/17/18/19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [‘UA(P) Act’, for short] were added subsequently against the accused persons, and that while adding Sections 17/18/19 of the UA(P) Act under Chapter IV, the Investigating Officer did not give any notice to the accused persons and also did not inform the grounds of arrest to the accused persons as provided under Section 43B of the UA(P) Act, and as such, the arrest of the accused persons under Sections 17/18/19 of the UA(P) Act is illegal in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , in Criminal Appeal No (s). of 2024 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No (s). of 2024] (D. No. 42896/2023) . Further, Mr. Kalita submits that the accused are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused persons, and that investigation is going on and the offences are serious in nature and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

¶25

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. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

It is not in dispute that all the three accused have been languishing in jail hazot for last 126 days. Further, from the materials collected so far in the case diary, it appears that the present accused persons are only strongly suspected to have planted the seized IED and have connection with one Aisheng Asom by providing information about the movement of security forces. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the materials collected so far in the case diary appears to be quite inadequate to persuade this Court to prima-facie believe that the accusations against the present accused are true, and as such, the bar of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act would not come into play here in this case.

¶28

Further, it appears that Section 43 of the UA(P) Act provides that that no police officer in any case not relatable to clause (a) or clause (b) below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of an equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under Chapter IV or VI. In the case in hand, though a case was registered under Sections 17/18/19 of the UA(P) Act under Chapter IV, yet the investigation is being carried out by one Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, SI Tapan Boruah of Moran P.S.

¶29

Further, from a perusal of Section 43B of the UA(P) Act, it appears that any officer arresting a person, under section 43A, shall as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India also provides that the accused person has the right to be informed about the grounds of his arrest.

¶30

However, the aforementioned provisions have been violated here in this case by not informing the accused persons about their grounds of arrest under Sections 10/13/17/18/19 of the UA(P) Act and as such, the mandate of Section 43B(1) of the UA(P) Act stands violated here in this case.

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

It is also to be noted here that in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared the arrest of the accused invalid in the eye of law and accordingly, quashed and set aside the same.

¶33

Taking note of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and also considering the materials placed on the record, this Court is of the view that a case for granting bail to the accused persons is made out. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused persons shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.

¶34

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

¶35

Case diary be returned.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Bhargob Gogoi v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhargob Gogoi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fakar Uddin Vs Durjan Khan and Anr.

Rupen Rabha Vs the State of Assam

Anowar Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Santosh Chetry and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Imran Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Nazrul Islam @ Nojirul Islam Vs the State of Assam