Santanu Ray @ Santanu Mohan Roy v. The State of Assam

ORDER Date : 09.11.2023

Heard Mr. J. C. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. By this second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Santanu Ray @ Santanu Mohan Roy, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Kachugaon P.S. Case No. 18/2023 under Sections 384/506 of the IPC, r/w Section 66(F) of the IT Act, r/w Sections 10/13/16/17 of the U.P.(P) Act (G.R. No. 166/2023). Page No.# 2/3 The case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. The accused petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.05.2023, i.e. for 180 days. The earlier bail application of the accused petitioner, being Bail Appln No. 2618/2023, was rejected by this Court vide order, dated 25.08.2023. The case relates to demand of Rs.5,00,000/-from the informant and some other persons of Gurutela market through WhatsApp by the members of one banned terrorist organization. It is to be noted that this Court, while rejecting the earlier bail application of the petitioner, had observed as hereinbelow extracted (relevant portion):-The case diary clearly reveals that the accused petitioner is a member of a banned militant outfit involved in terrorist acts and for this objective he and other members of the outfit raised funds from the public subject, however, to final outcome in investigation. The investigation is yet to be completed. Therefore, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances that emerged from the case diary, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the liberty of bail is granted to the accused petitioner, the ongoing investigation into the case is likely to be adversely affected. On perusal of the updated case diary, it appears that the investigation is yet to be completed and there is prima facie incriminating material against the accused petitioner, subject, of course, to final outcome in investigation. However, in the backdrop of facts and evidence, as emerged from the case diary and having considered the length of detention, this Court is of the considered opinion that further continuation of detention of the accused in the interest of investigation is Page No.# 3/3 not warranted. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail of Rs. 50,000/-with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kokrajhar subject to the following conditions-

i) That the accused petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer as and when required; and

ii) That the accused petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Police Officer or the Court; and

iii) That the accused petitioner shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future, of which he is suspected of commission. Any breach of the above conditions shall render cancellation of the bail in accordance with law. Return the case diary. This disposes of the bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010217242023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3505/2023 SANTANU RAY @ SANTANU MOHAN ROY S/O- SRI PRADIP KUMAR RAY @ PRADIP RAY, R/O- MARAKURA, P.S. GOLOKGANJ, DIST.- DHUBRI (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR