Gauhati High Court
Asab Uddin vs The State Of Assam on 22 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010144112025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2156/2025
ASAB UDDIN
SON OF NIZAM UDDIN
R/O VILL- MADHYA SAMARALI, P.S. MURAJHAR, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S A BARBHUIYA, MR. B HUSSAIN,MR. D K AGARWALA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 22-07-2025
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.
K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioner, namely, Asab Uddin, who has been detained behind the bars since
12.05.2025 (for last 71 days) in connection with Crime Branch P.S. Case No.
2/2025 under Sections 61(2)/147/308(2) of the BNS read with Sections 10/13 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Page No.# 2/5
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 29.04.2025, one Dr. Sankar
Jyoti Nath, Inspector of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of
Crime Branch Police Station, inter alia, alleging that three accused persons
named in the FIR, namely, Y. Nemkha, Yaman Konyak and S. Hangmei Konyak
were acting as Overground Worker/linkmen of the proscribed organization ULFA
(Independent) in the Guwahati city and they are directly associated with James
Asom, the self-styled Commander of ULFA(I).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has been detained behind the bars for last 71 days and he has not been named
in the FIR. He further submits that all the three accused who were named in the
FIR were granted bail by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court on 18.06.2025 in Bail
Application No. 1895/2025. He submits that the accusation made against the
present petitioner is similar to that of the accused persons who are already
released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He, therefore, submits
that as the present petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the released
accused persons, hence, he is entitled to get bail in this case on the ground of
parity. He further submits that considering the period of detention undergone by
the petitioner, he may be allowed to go on bail as he is ready to co-operate in
the investigation.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is
a daily wage worker and he came in contact with the co-accused Tapan Roy in
Nagaland and on being asked, he provided him mobile phone. Apart from that,
he does not have any involvement in the alleged offence.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner has been arrested in this case only on the basis of the statement of
co-accused Tapan Roy and nothing apartment from the said statement is there
Page No.# 3/5
against him on record. He further submits that Tapan Roy has already been
granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No.
2131/2025 on 27.06.2025.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no
embargo though the offense involved in this case against the present petitioner
is also under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, however, as only
offenses under Sections 10 and 13 of the said Act are shown to have been
committed by the petitioner, no embargo under Section 43(d)(5) is there in this
case.
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced
the case diary of Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 2/2025 and has vehemently
opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. He submits that the present
petitioner is an active member of ULFA (Independent) and he had been trained
in Myanmar and Bangladesh and during investigation there are sufficient
materials found against the present petitioner of having been involved in supply
of arms and in process of recruiting fresh recruits to the proscribed ULFA (I)
organization. He submits that the accusation against the present petitioner are
very serious in nature and as he has been found involved in anti-national
activities and as the investigation is yet to be completed, his bail application
may be rejected.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner
was found, during investigation, to have provided with logistic support like
providing SIM card to other co-accused person and facilitating them in
commission of the offence alleged in this case. He submits that considering the
nature of offence involved in this case and the stage of investigation, release of
the petitioner at this state would impede the fair progress of the investigation.
Page No.# 4/5
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both
sides and have gone through the case diary which has been produced by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Procurator.
11. It appears from the case diary that in this case the accusation in the FIR has
been levelled specifically against three accused persons named in the FIR. It also
appears that the said accused persons have already been allowed to go on bail by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 1895/2025 on
18.06.2025. Apart from that another co-accused, namely, Tapan Roy has been
allowed to go on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.06.2025 in Bail
Application No. 2131/2025.
12. Though, there are incriminating materials against the present petitioner in
the case diary, however, it appears that the petitioner has been detained behind
the bars for the last 71 days and considering the period of detention as well as
progress made in the investigation, further custodial detention of the petitioner
does not appear to be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Crime
Branch P.S. Case No. 2/2025, if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on
bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount, subject
to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) 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;
14. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.
Page No.# 5/5
15. Send back the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant