Gauhati High Court
Subimal Padun vs The State Of Assam on 7 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010139382026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1513/2026
SUBIMAL PADUN
SON OF UMESH PADUN, RESIDENT OF NAPAM, KHUBALIA, DHEMAJI -
787057, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SHARMA, MR. M MORE,MR. A BORPUZARI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
07.07.2026
Heard Mr. P. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Subimal Padun, who
is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 59/2026
Page No.# 2/3
under Section 62(2)/308(4) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 10/13 U.A.(P) Act.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 27.03.2026 one Dhairjya
Borpatra, S.I. of police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of
Dhemaji Police Station, inter alia, alleging that some persons have received
extortion letters from members of banned Organization namely, United
Liberation Front of Assam. The FIR named few persons involved in the alleged
offence and also indicates that some local active collaborators may also be
involved in facilitating extortion activities.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way
involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. However, he has received telephone
call from the Dhemaji Police Station, inter alia, stating to him that in connection
with the aforesaid case one Bidyut Buragohain who is a known person to the
present petitioner has also been arrested and in that connection the police is
repeatedly asking to appear before the Police Station.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to
approach the Police and cooperate in the investigation however, since non-
bailable offence are involved in this case he apprehends that he may also be
arrested in connection with the aforesaid case and he appear before the Police
without any protection.
6. On the other hand, Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the offence involved in this case is of serious in nature under the
provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He also submits that
under Section 43 D (4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and
anticipatory bail application is not maintainable for offences under provisions of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, hence, he raises question of
Page No.# 3/3
maintainability of the instant bail application.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may
be given some time to decide the question of maintainability of the instant
anticipatory bail application. He submits that as there is no prima facie material
against the present petitioner regarding commission of any offence under the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Hence, the embargo of Section 43
D(4) of the said Act is not applicable to this case. He however submits that case
diary may be called for hence some time may be granted to him to address the
question o maintainability.
8. The prayer is allowed.
9. Let the case diary be called for.
10. Let the case diary be called for.
11. Let this matter be listed on 20.07.2026.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
