Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. Gauhati High Court/
  4. 2024/
  5. June

Rono Lungchang vs. the State of Assam

Decided on 28 June 2024• Citation: AB/1530/2024• Gauhati High Court
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                                                   Page No.# 1/3    
        GAHC010117082024                                                            
                             THE  GAUHATI    HIGH   COURT                           
          (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL  PRADESH)           
                                 Case No. : AB/1530/2024                            
                 RONO LUNGCHANG                                                     
                 S/O LATE A. SIMON LUNGCHANG, R/O LEDO, TIKOK, MALUGAON, P.S.-      
                 MARGHERITA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM                                  
                 VERSUS                                                             
                 THE STATE OF ASSAM                                                 
                 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM                        
        Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S PARASHAR                                 
        Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM                                     
                                       BEFORE                                       
                   HONOURABLE  MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND                   
                                       ORDER                                        
        Date : 28-06-2024                                                           
             Heard Mr. S. Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rono     
        Lungchang, who has filed this application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal
        Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is   
        apprehending arrest in connection with Margherita Police Station Case No.   
        58/2024 under Sections 120(B)/379/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC

                                                                   Page No.# 2/3    
        for short).                                                                 
        2.   Heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for
        the State respondent.                                                       
        3.   The FIR unfolds that on 25.05.2024 at about 9.45 AM, the informant     
        received a phone call from SDO (Civil), Margherita who informed him that two
        persons from the Constituency of MLA Ribhoi, Meghalaya and one another      
        person are stuck in a mine in Borgoloi area. Immediately the informant      
        embarked into an enquiry and he found an eye witness named Nishant Rai      
        residing in the same area who stated that the unfortunate individuals were  
        engaged in illegal coal mining in Tikok West Mine of Namdang Coal Gran No. 4
        NC area. They dug up a rat hole to commit theft of coal and met with an     
        accident. During enquiry, it was also unearthed that they were working as per
        instructions of some other miscreants who were paying them for risking their
        lives for committing theft of coal through such rat holes. There is an organized
        nexus of coal theft. Intentionally the lives of several individuals have been
        endangered in this manner and two persons have died while committing theft of
        coal.                                                                       
        4.   The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this 
        Court to the statement of Nishant Rai recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC
        which is marked as Annexure-1 series of the petition.                       
        5.   It is submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor in the
        statement of the witnesses are recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.      
        6.   To  this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious  
        objection stating that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against
        the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is complicit. He is also a

                                                                   Page No.# 3/3    
        member  of  the nexus in illegal mining through rat holes. He received      
        commission and during investigation more than Rs.2 Crores was recovered in his
        house. His name  has  not been  mentioned  in the FIR as  investigation     
        commenced  only after the FIR was lodged and all these nefarious activities were
        unearthed during the investigation. Considering the staggering magnitude of the
        offence the petitioner may not be admitted to bail. The learned Additional Public
        Prosecutor has prayed to reject the bail petition as investigation is still under
        progress and the investigation may be adversely affected if the petitioner is at
        large.                                                                      
        7.   I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have
        also considered the magnitude of the offence. The network is involved in the
        nexus of illegal coal mining having its tentacles spread over a large area. 
        Investigation may be impeded if the petitioner is at large. The merits of this
        case are not brought to the fore. At this juncture, I am constrained to reject the
        bail petition.                                                              
        8.   Hence, petition with prayer for bail is rejected at this juncture.     
        9.   In the above terms, Anticipatory Bail application stands rejected at this
        stage.                                                                      
        10.  Send back the Case Diary.                                              
                                                          JUDGE                     
        Comparing Assistant