Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21619 (GAU)

RAM BHUSAN NUNIA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/3250/2024 · 2025-01-02

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010261492024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3250/2024 RAM BHUSAN NUNIA S/O MOHAN NUNIA VILL AND P.O. KOYAH T.E. P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H BARBHUIYA, AJMAT ALI,MS. S. DEY,MS. N.A. LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 03.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Ram Bhusan Nunia, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Lala P.S. Case No. 187/2024, under Section 118(2)/121(2)/132/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 01.11.2024, one Dharmendra Das, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In- Charge of Lala police station, inter alia, alleging that on 31.10.2024, at about 7:45 PM on receipt of an information through reliable sources that some people are engaged in gambling playing “Jhandi Munda” on the roadside at different places. Police reached there and started picking the gambling material. It is alleged that at that time about 200 people gathered there and started attacking the police personnel and also started damaging the government vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR and allegation made against him in the FIR is not true. 5. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a government servant and presently engaged as an assistant teacher in Koyah Publine Lower Primary School. He also submits that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with this case, his service career would be jeopardised. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Page No.# 3/4 Lala P.S. Case No. 187/2024 and has submitted that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary and he does opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. Though some of the witnesses have named the present petitioner in their statement, however, they only stated about his presence at the place of occurrence of the alleged offence. Nothing specific has been attributed to him by any of the witnesses. It also appears that the police personnel’s suffered simple injury. Moreover, considering the fact that the petitioner is a government servant, if he co-operates in the investigation, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Lala P.S. Case No. 187/2024. 8. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Lala P.S. Case No. 187/2024, within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons 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. Page No.# 4/4 9. With the above observations, this anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of. 10. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant