Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010026242025 2025:GAU-AS:2792 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./354/2025 TAPHA KONYAK S/O LT.NAHTEI KONYAK R/O SHANGNYU VILLAGE, P.S. TIZIT, DIST. MON, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BORUAH, MS. P BORAH,MR. M ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 17-03-2025 Heard Mr. K. Boruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail to the petitioner as he is behind bars since 01.01.2025 shown arrest on 20.01.2025 in connection with Namtola P.S. Case No. 28/2024 u/s 111(2) (b)/331(6)/140(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and read with Section 4 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908. 3. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. The Case Diary is received and perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Boruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused-petitioner is no way involved with the alleged offence nor there is any allegation brought against him in the FIR. However, while he was in custody in connection with the Sonari P.S. Case No. 124/2024, the present accused-petitioner was shown arrested in connection with the case on 20.01.2025 and since then he also in custody in connection with the case. Mr. Boruah further submitted that from the plain reading of the FIR itself it is seen that the present petitioner is no way involved in the abduction of the husband of the informant who lodged the FIR and accordingly considering the length of detention he may be released on bail. However, he is ready and willing to co- operate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case. 5. Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that though the name of the present petitioner is not available in the FIR but from the materials available in the Case Diary it is seen that he was continuously in touch of the kidnapers who kidnapped the husband of the informant and the Investigating Officer has already collected the call details etc. during investigation. Further, some of the co-accused persons who are yet to be nabbed in connection with this case and accordingly Mr. Baruah raised objection Page No.# 3/3 in granting bail to the present petitioner. Further he submitted that the person who was abducted is yet to be recovered and the investigation is still under process. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that though the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR but, the materials so far collected by the Investigating Officer, it is seen that he had a constant touch with the kidnappers who alleged to have kidnapped the husband of the informant. Further other materials so far collected by the Investigating officer also show the involvement of the alleged accused-petitioner in the said offence on kidnaping and extortion. 7. In view of this and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it justified to consider this bail application only considering the length of detention and hence the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant