The Tripura High Court on October 7, 2025, dismissed a bail plea filed by Nakib Ali, an accused in a decade-old kidnapping-for-ransom case. Justice Biswajit Palit, hearing the matter, noted that the "prima facie involvement of the accused cannot be ruled out," adding that the nature of the crime warranted continued judicial custody.
The case, which has lingered since 2011, involves the alleged abduction of Ashish Som by extremist elements demanding a ransom of ₹25 lakh. Despite payments made by the victim’s family, Som remains missing to this day.
Background
The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Smt. Seli Som, wife of the missing victim, at West Agartala Police Station on August 5, 2011. She claimed her husband had left home on May 28 that year and never returned. Days later, she received a chilling phone call from an unidentified extremist who claimed Som was being held captive somewhere in North Tripura.
The caller demanded ₹25 lakh for Som's release, warning her not to contact the police. Desperate to save her husband, Seli and her relatives allegedly arranged ₹23 lakh, which they handed over at different locations as per the kidnappers’ instructions. Despite their efforts, Ashish Som was never found.
The police initially booked several suspects under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with kidnapping for ransom. Over time, more names surfaced, including that of Nakib Ali, who, according to the investigating officer (IO), was a close associate of the alleged mastermind.
Court Proceedings
During the hearing, Advocate Alik Das, appearing for the applicant, argued that Nakib Ali had been wrongly implicated. Das pointed out that the accused was working in Saudi Arabia at the time of the alleged offence and had returned to India only after several years.
"He appeared before the investigating officer multiple times after his return," the lawyer submitted, "but on the last occasion, he was arrested and has been in custody since September 3, 2025."
The defence further claimed that the accused was manhandled during police custody and that no incriminating material had been found against him during the initial investigation. The counsel pleaded for bail on humanitarian grounds, citing the severe illness of Nakib's wife.
On the other hand, Public Prosecutor Raju Datta, assisted by Additional PP Rajib Saha, strongly opposed the bail plea. The prosecution argued that the accused's overseas travel records did not align with his alibi.
"He claims to have left for Dubai in January 2011," the P.P. said, "but evidence shows he flew out only in late September."
The bench took note of this contradiction, observing that it undermined the defence's claim of innocence. The prosecution also emphasized that the accused was part of a larger conspiracy involving ransom payments and that his role could not be dismissed merely because he was abroad at some point.
Court's Observations
After examining the case diary and the charge sheet, Justice Palit remarked that there were sufficient materials to indicate the accused’s connection to the crime.
"The accused was one of the close associates of the mastermind," the court observed, "and soon after the occurrence, he absconded from the country, making it difficult for the police to trace him."
The bench acknowledged that while the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet filed, the gravity of the offence - kidnapping for ransom - demanded caution.
"Considering the materials on record, the prima facie involvement of the accused cannot be ruled out," Justice Palit stated.
He further directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, reminding the authorities that the accused had already spent over a month in judicial custody.
Decision
In a brief but firm conclusion, the High Court rejected the bail plea of Nakib Ali. The order stated:
"Considering the materials on record, I do not find any scope to release the accused on bail. The accused is to remain in judicial custody as before."
The judge instructed the trial court to ensure an early hearing of the case and clarified that if any other accused remained absconding, the lower court could proceed to split up the record and continue the trial against those present.
The order ends with a clear message while delays have clouded the case for over a decade, the court is unwilling to extend leniency in a matter involving kidnapping, ransom, and a missing person whose fate remains unknown.
Case Title: Sakia Begam vs The State of Tripura
Case Number: Bail Application (BA) No. 90 of 2025
Date of Order: 7 October 2025
