Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010244692025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3579/2025 JAMAL ALI @ SONA SON OF MOJAMMIL ALI R/O POLARPAR P.S. PANCHGRAM DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. 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 Date : 17.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamal Ali @ Sona who has been detained behind the bars since 23.08.2025 (for last 86 days) in connection with Umrangso P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 2/2025 under Sections 105/3(5) of BNS read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 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 of 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 on an earlier occasion, the petitioner has approached before this Court seeking bail, however, by order dated 25.09.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 2936/2025, his prayer for grant of bail was rejected on finding sufficient materials against him. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meanwhile all other co-accused have already been released on bail and the petitioner who was only acting as Manager and who looked after financial matter has been languishing behind the bars for last 86 days. He submits that considering the length of detention, his further custodial interrogation may not be necessary as the investigation might have progressed sufficiently by now and, therefore, he prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Umrangso P.S. Case No. 2/2025 and has submitted Page No.# 3/3 that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary, however, he fairly submits that in the meanwhile the investigation has fairly progressed. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary. 8. Considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner as well as the progress made in the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of this case. 9. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dima Hasao with following conditions:- (i) That 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 case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 10. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant