Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010069822025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1047/2025 MANASHAB BISWAS S/O- MANOJ BISWAS R/O C/O SARBESWARDAS NABA MILAN PATH, LAKSHMI NAGAR, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M),-781019, PH. 9101949995 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS S JAIN,MR J SINGH,MR H AGARWAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10-04-2025 Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Page No.# 2/3 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind the bars since 13.03.2025 in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 06/2025 u/s 77/79/356(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, R/W Section 66E/67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. Case Diary is not received. 4. Mr. Konwar, the learned counsel for the present accused/petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was arrested in connection with this case on 13.03.2025 and since then he is in custody and thus the Investigating Officer got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the present petitioner keeping him in custody. Further, he submitted that from the FIR itself it is seen that the informant had shared some intimate photographs with her boyfriend, namely, Gautam Das in the year 2017. He already got arrested in connection with this case. He further submitted that the accused was also not provided with any 35 BNSS notice corresponding to Section 41A Cr.PC which is mandatorily required and the explanation made by the Investigating Officer is not satisfactory which clearly violates the mandate of the Constitution. He is not an FIR named accused but it is alleged that he sold nude photographs of girls including the complainant and received payment through UPI ID. But the allegations made against the present accused/petitioner are entirely based on conjecture and lack of substantive evidence directly linking him to the alleged offence. More so, the petitioner is a student and he just completed his Higher Secondary Examination and further incarceration in the jail will cause irreparable harm to his academic career and to his future. More so, the accused is a permanent resident of his addressed locality and there is no chance of absconding rather he will appear Page No.# 3/3 before the Investigating Officer as and when his cooperation will be needed for the purpose of investigation. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the grounds of arrest, it is seen that during investigation it revealed that the UPI ID was used by present petitioner who sold nude photos of the girls including the complainant and received payment through UPI ID. He also shared vulgar and nude photos of girls on a Telegram group causing harm to the victim and violating the social norms. He used to sell those photos to others exposing and harassing the other victims. Further Mr. Sharma submitted that the reasons for not applying the proviso of Section 35(3) BNSS is also explained by the Investigating Officer which is accordingly considered by the learned Trial Court below. He further submitted that at this stage he is not in a position to submit further merits of the case due to non-availability of the Case Diary. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma insisted to call for the Case Diary to know the further details of the investigation and the materials. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and the nature of allegation against the present petitioner, I find that perusal of the Case Diary will be required before passing any order of bail. 7. Accordingly, the case may be fixed for Case Diary on 23.04.2025. JUDGE Comparing Assistant