Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14033 (GAU)

BINORDASON RONGPI ALIAS BINERSON RONGPI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM,

Bail Appln./2634/2026 · 2026-09-08

Shamima Jahan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010189552026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2634/2026 BINORDASON RONGPI ALIAS BINERSON RONGPI S/O RENSING RONGPI , R/O MODEL VILLAGE BORJAN , P/S MANJA , DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A RAHMAN, MR N ALOM,MR. J M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 09.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 18/2021, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 150/2021, Page No.# 2/4 registered under Sections 364 A/34 IPC. 3. The petitioner’s case is that, an FIR was lodged on 08.06.2021, by the victim stating inter alia that two persons had kidnapped him on 04.06.2021, and took him to a jungle and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakhs) from him and when he could not pay at that juncture a discussion was held and the said two persons told him to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) on a particular day. It was also stated that the persons had threatened him that, if he does not pay the money he will be killed. 4. The police on receipt of the FIR conducted the investigation and found out the petitioner as one of the accused of the said case. Thereafter, Charge-sheet was submitted and the Trial commenced. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was released on bail before the Charge-sheet was filed and that he had appeared before the Trial Court during the initial stage of the trial but later on, he submits that the petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court and NBWA was issued against him as well as proclamation. The learned counsel thereafter, states that the petitioner filed an application before the High Court for setting aside the NBWA as well as proclamation issued against him and the High Court had ordered for keeping the said orders issuing NBWA and proclamation in abeyance and directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and then he was taken into custody. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been inside the jail since his arrest on 14.08.2026. He submits that the petitioner did not appear during that time before the Trial Court since he was Page No.# 3/4 staying in a very interior place and was not aware of the dates fixed in before the Trial Court. 6. Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the conduct of the appellant is not amenable for further bail order from this Court. As such he submits that the petitioner remained absent and did not appear before the Trial Court for a period of around 3 (Three) years and that he could be again brought before the Trial Court only the strength of the NBWA as well as the proclamation issued against him. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, more so in view of the fact that, the petitioner in compliance of the order of this High Court had appeared before the Trial Court, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Diphu under the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall positively appear before the Trial Court as and when call for. (ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witness connected with the case; and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave their residence without prior permission of the Trial Court. (iv) If the petitioner does not appear on one single day during the trial the bail will be cancelled by the authority concerned. Page No.# 4/4 8. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant