Gauhati High Court
Santosh Phukan vs The State Of Assam on 8 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010149802022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2128/2022
SANTOSH PHUKAN
S/O- SRI UDDHAB CHANDRA PHUKAN, R/O- VILL.- TINSUKIA NOKHROY
GAON, P.O. BORGURI VIA RANGAGARHA ROAD, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM,
PIN- 786125.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
08.09.2022
Heard Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the
State respondent.
This second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed for granting the
privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Santosh Phukan
apprehending his arrest in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 402/2022
registered u/s 294/379/506 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(X) of Schedule
Page No.# 2/4
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
This case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.
It may be mentioned that by order, dated 21.06.2022, this Court has
rejected the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner in AB No. 1551/2022.
Mr. B. K. Das, leaned counsel appearing of the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner, who is a Reporter of Assam Talks Tv Channel, has been implicated in
a false case. Mr. Das further submits that the petitioner had not uttered any
abusive word as alleged by the informant. Mr. Das contends that while the
petitioner along with his camera man was about to start reporting of illegal sale
of fish by the members of Saikhowa Sadiya Meen Samabai Samittee Ltd. at
Guijan Ghat in the district of Tinsukia which is not their area of operation and
fishing activity, carried out by the said Samittee during the period of ban on
fishing from 1st May to 31st of July of the year as per Section 23A of Assam
Fishery Rules, 1953, the informant and his agent threatened him and his camera
man to stop reporting. Mr. Das, in this context, has referred to the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Union of India Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in (2020) 4 SCC 761 and in Parthvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India,
reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727.
Opposing the pre-arrest bail application Mr. B.B.Gogoi, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor submits that the case diary reflects sufficient prima facie
incriminating evidence against the petitioner and this court in its previous order
dated 21.06.2022, passed in AB No. 1551/2022 recorded this reason for
rejecting his pre-arrest bail application.
The FIR reveals the allegation that while the informant was going to sell
fish, the FIR named petitioner arrived at the sale-counter at Guijan ghat and
Page No.# 3/4
abused them as they are belonged to scheduled cast fisherman and also called
them 'Dom' (low caste) and dirty people in front of public and demanded
extortion money. It is also alleged that the petitioner came back to the sale-
counter and by kicking at the informant forcefully took over the possession of
his office table and snatched away a sum of Rs. 29,330/-.
Having considered the averments made in the petition and perusal of the
case diary, which is still in its nascent stage, this Court is of the view that in the
backdrop of facts and circumstances, perusal of the statement of the petitioner
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is necessary for a just disposal of the instant petition.
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the petitioner
named above, shall be released on interim pre-arrest bail, in connection with
the above noted case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety
of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject, of course,
to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within 7 days, failing which on and from the 8 th day, the
interim-pre arrest bail order shall have no force; and
(ii) That the 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 Court or to any police officer; and
(iii) That the petitioner shall refrain from committing any
similar offence in future of which he is accused or suspected of
commission.
Page No.# 4/4
Return the case diary for re-submission updated after Puja vacation
(02.10.2022 to 18.10.2022).
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
