Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010154182025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2303/2025 RUHUL AMIN S/O- NOZRUL HAQUE. R/O- BAGULAMARI, P.O.- AMCO ROAD, P.S.- DHUBRI, SUB-DIST.- DHUBRI, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M BORAH, A N HUSSAIN,MRS. B GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 06.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner Ruhul Amin who has been detained behind the bars since 15.06.2025 Page No.# 2/3 (for the last 52 days) in connection with HLM PS Case No. 03/2025 under Sections 61(2)(a)/329(3)/111(3) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 12.01.2025, one Mahibur Rahman, S.I of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of HLM P.S, inter alia, alleging that from local investigation, it came to the light that some individuals namely (1) Riju Kant Pegu, (2) Md. Ali Hussain and (3) Ratna Kant Pegu along with some of their associates have been illegally hunting Rhinoceros for their horns in the Gamiri Forest Area near the Brahmaputra River. It is also alleged in the FIR that said Ratna Kant Pegu had procured illegal weapons and had been in contact with sharp shooters from Dimapur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. She submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and he has been implicated in this case mainly on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused persons. She also submits that nothing was seized from the possession of the present petitioner and he has been languishing behind the bars for the last 52 days. She also submits that, in the meanwhile, two of the co-accused, namely, Chinzason Valte @ Sonpu and one Nukman Ali have already been enlarged on bail. She, therefore, prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.K Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been associated with the offence of poaching in other cases also and there are materials in the Case Diary against him. He submits that the co-accused persons have implicated the petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. Page No.# 3/3 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have carefully gone through the Case Diary. Though there are materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary, however, it appears that the investigation has fairly progresses and the petitioner detained behind bars for last 52 days. Considering the progress made in the investigation, as well as, period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner cooperates in the investigation, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair progress of the investigation in this case. 7. On the aforesaid reasons, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with 1(one) surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of Ld. Elaka Magistrate with the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the investigating officer; and (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant