Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010199052025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2936/2025 JAMAL ALI ALIAS SONA SON OF MOJAMMIL ALI R/O POLARPAR P.S. PANCHGRAM DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 25.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner namely Jamal Ali @ Sona who has been detained behind the bars Page No.# 2/3 since 23.08.2025 (for last 53 days) in connection with Umrangso P.S. Case No. 02/2025 under Sections 105/3(5) of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 22(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 06.01.2025 one Sri Prasenjit Kemprai, Senior Manager (Tech) AMDCL has lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- charge Umrangso Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received by the first informant that some laborers and some miscreants who were doing illegal coal extraction from well type pit hole have been trapped therein on 06.01.2025 and in the pit under water, a prayer was made for rescuing the trapped persons and it was alleged that this type of illegal mining which was very dangerous and may lead to loss of life is going on there. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is only manager of the main accused Punush Nunisa and he only looked after the financial matters. He submits that the main accused has already been granted bail by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao considering the period of the detention. He further submits that some other co-accused persons are also released on bail and therefore, he prays that considering the period of detention the petitioner may also be allowed to go on bail. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. 5. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Umrangso P.S. Case No. 02/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. He also submits that there are sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner in the case diary, indicating the fact that it is he who manages the legal coal mining which resulted in death of 9 laborers and he used to supply the machineries for illegal coal mining at Page No.# 3/3 Kalamati area. He further submits that the Bank account of the petitioner’s is under examination which shows the transaction of huge amount of money. He further submits that the petitioner does not stand on the same footing as that of the other co-accused as he has completed only 33 days behind the bars whereas main accused was granted bail considering the period of detention (58 days). 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the both sides and have gone through the materials in the case diary. 7. The case diary reveals that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner indicating his complicity in the offence alleged in this case. 8. It also appears that some of the co-accused are yet to be arrested. Further he does not stand on the same footing as that of the released accused person, namely, Punush Nunisa as he was released on bail after completion of 58 days behind the bars whereas the present petitioner has completed only 33 days and his further custodial interrogation may be required. 9. For aforesaid reasons this Court is reluctant to grant bail of the petitioner. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. 10. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant