Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010182262025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2700/2025 PRANAB JYOTI CHETIA S/OSRI DOMBORUDHAR CHETIA R/O BASISTAPUR BYLANE NO. 1,WIRELESS, P.S. HATIGAON GUWAHATI-781038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, P KHATANIAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the Page No.# 2/4 petitioner, namely, Pranab Jyoti Chetia, who has been detained behind the bars since 31.07.2025 in connection with Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 2/2025 under Sections 61(2)/147/308(2) of the BNS read with Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 29.04.2025, one Dr. Sankar Jyoti Nath, Inspector of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer- incharge of Crime Branch Police Station, inter alia, alleging that three accused persons named in the FIR, namely, Y. Nemkha, Yaman Konyak and S. Hangmei Konyak were acting as Overground Worker/linkmen of the proscribed organization ULFA (Independent) in the Guwahati city and they are directly associated with James Asom, the self-styled Commander of ULFA(I). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for the last 47 days, whereas he has not even named in the FIR. He further submits that all the three named accused in the FIR were granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He also submits that apart from that some other co-accused persons are also released on bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no embargo though the offence involved in this case against the present petitioner is also under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, however, as only offences under Sections 10 and 13 of the said Act are shown to have been committed by the petitioner, no embargo under Section 43(d)(5) is there in this case. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 3/4 produced the case diary of Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 2/2025 and has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 7. He has submitted that the petitioner is an active member of ULFA (Independent) organization and earlier he was involved in effecting surrender of high profile leader of the said organization. 8. He also submits that there is also materials on record to suggest that the petitioner by posing with pistol used to share his photograph and used to demand ransom from the public. 9. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the case diary, which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. Though, there are some incriminating materials against the present petitioner, however, as regards the incident in connection with accusation has been made in the FIR, there is no material to link the petitioner with the said incident. 11. Further, taking into consideration that all the three named accused in the FIR have been released on bail and the petitioner has also been detained behind the bars for the last 47 days as well as the progress made in the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that if he cooperates in the investigation, further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 2/2025. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only with one surety of like Page No.# 4/4 amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) with following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation, ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to 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. 13. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. 14. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant