Samsong Tamang’s Bail Petition Withdrawn Amid Legal Credential Misuse

The bail petition for Samsong Tamang, also known as Shamsan Tamang, was unexpectedly withdrawn on the same day it was filed, raising questions over procedural integrity. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangtok, marked the case as “disposed of” during the first hearing on March 12, 2025. However, the official court order is yet to be updated on the District and Sessions Court’s portal, raising concerns about transparency.

The bail plea, filed under case number 5/2025, was listed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gangtok. Court records initially showed that Advocate Ranjit Prasad represented the petitioner while the State of Sikkim appeared as the respondent. However, sources later revealed that Prasad denied involvement in the case, claiming that another advocate had misused his ID and password to file the petition without his consent.

The case originated from an FIR filed against Samsong Tamang on February 3, 2025, over a controversial Facebook post dated January 1, 2025, on a page named “Patrukar.” The post allegedly contained derogatory remarks targeting the Khas community and their cultural practices, leading to widespread public outrage and demands for legal action. Tamang was subsequently charged under sections 299, 196(1), 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The advocate responsible for the unauthorized filing reportedly apologized to Ranjit Prasad, and the matter was resolved internally within the Bar Association. The bail petition was formally withdrawn with an appraisal to the Judicial Magistrate regarding the misuse of credentials.

Legal experts have raised concerns over the misuse of professional identity in sensitive cases, warning that such lapses could undermine public trust in the legal process. “This incident highlights the urgent need for stricter monitoring and protection of legal credentials,” said one senior advocate.

Meanwhile, the Khas community, which had been at the center of the controversy, has not issued any official statement on the withdrawal of the case. Public and legal circles continue to speculate about the reasons behind the swift withdrawal, with calls for greater accountability and transparency in judicial proceedings.