Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010086242025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/939/2025 SOBIL AHMED ALIAS SOBIL UDDIN AND 3 ORS. S/OLT. ABDUL HANNAN R/O SADAR GAON P.S.MURAJHAR DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM 2: FOKHRUL ISLAM @ FAKRUL ISLAM @ FAKRUL ISLAM BORBHUIYA S/OLT.ABDUL NOOR R/O SADAR GAON P.S. MURAJHAR DIST. HOJAI ASSAM 3: MONOWAR HUSSAIN @ BOKUL S/OLT. TOSOUR ALI R/O HOJAI TOWN P.S. HOJAI DIST.HOJAI ASSAM 4: KABIR AHMED LASKAR S/O SOFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR R/OBHELOUGURI P.S. DOBOKA DIST HOJAI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MS SURAYA RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SAURADEEP DEY(INFORMANT),MR. B HUSSAIN (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 23.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. B. Hussain, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1.Sobil Ahmed @ Sobil Uddin, 2. Fokhrul Islam @ Fakrul Islam @ Fakrul Islam Barbhuiya, 3. Monowar Hussain @ Bokul and 4. Kabir Ahmed Laskar,who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Murajhar P.S. Case No. 40/2025, under Sections111/ 318(4)/ 61(2)/ 115(2)of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15.03.2025, one Moinul Hoque had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Murajhar PoliceStation, inter alia, allegingthat the accused persons named in the FIR (the present petitioners) have collected on the first instance Rs. 6,000/- from the first informant and also Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/-from the Page No.# 3/8 other person on a promise that they will provide Govt. patta land under Bashundara Scheme. It is also alleged that the petitioners again collected Rs. 10,000/- from each and other several persons and when the informant enquired about the land pattas, the petitioners on 14.03.2025 have assaulted the informant with hired mercenaries (Berunia Gunda). It is also alleged that the petitioners formed gang to collect money from the neighbours across the Hojai District with false pretences. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are members of affiliated All Assam Minority Student Union (in short, “AAMSU”). He further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR are not true. He also submits that prior to filing of the present FIR, on 23.01.2025, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 as the office bearers of AAMSU, Hojai District Committee had given a memorandum to the District Commissioner, Hojai, regarding illegal proposal to sell Govt. grazing land by 3 accused persons named in the said memorandum, Hilal Uddin Barbhuiya, Bilal Uddin Barbhuiya and Mozir Uddin Barbhuiya and a request was made to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled against them in the memorandum by the AAMSU. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter again on 10.02.2025, a reminder memorandum was submitted before the District Commissioner, Hojai against the said three persons namely, Hilal Uddin Barbhuiya, Bilal Uddin Barbhuiya and Mozir Uddin Barbhuiya. This time, specific accusations were levelled against them and some information, regarding phone numbers and the persons involved in such illegal proposal to offer allotment of Govt. land to the private individuals Page No.# 4/8 have been clearly mentioned. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the first informant, Moinul Hoque is the member of the same gang group against whom the AAMSU had complained in its memorandum and the present FIR has been lodged by the first informant against the present petitioners is as a counter blast to the complaint filed by All Assam Minority Students Union, Hojai District Committee. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in the instant case, i.e.,Murajhar P.S. Case No. 40/ 2025, one of the offences alleged is organised under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 which requires the existence of a continuing unlawful activities is one of the essential ingredients of Section 111 of BNS. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the continuing unlawful activities has been defined under Section 111 (1) explanation (ii) as meaning an activity prohibited by law which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge sheets have been filed before a competent court within the preceeding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence, and includes economic offence. However, he submits that in the instant case, there are no such charge sheets were filed against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in this Page No.# 5/8 respect, an enquiry report with reference Murajhar P.S. GDE No. 008, dated 17.03.2025 has been given by the Officer-in-Charge of Murajhar Police Station wherein it is stated that during the enquiry it was found that in 9 different cases the accused persons were previously involved, wherein cognizance was taken by the court after filing of the charge sheets. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the list of 9 cases mentioned in the enquiry report, in 4 cases none of the petitioners are shown as accused, whereas, in two cases only the petitioner No. 3 was charge sheeted and acquitted, namely Hojai P.S. Case No. 712/2014, Hojai P.S. Case No. 149/2016. Apart from that in another case, i.e., Murajhar P.S. Case No. 129/2016 only accused No. 3 is charge sheeted, whereas in Murajhar P.S. Case No. 130/2016 only accused No. 2 and 3 have been charge sheeted. He submits that no charge sheet has been filed against accused No. 1 and 4. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the accusation of the assault has been falsely made against the present petitioners and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation. 11. On the other handthe learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sarma has produced the case diary of Murajhar P.S. Case No. 40/2025 and has submitted that though the Officer-in-Charge of Murajhar Police Station has conducted the enquiry with reference Murajhar P.S. G.D. E. No. 008 dated 17.03.2025, wherein it has been mentioned that the present petitioners are involved in 9 previous cases where charge sheet was lodged against them.However, apart from mentioning the number of 9 cases and number of charge sheets, no separate documents to Page No.# 6/8 substantiate the said findings is found in the case diary. He also submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner No. 1 Sobil Ahmed @ Sobil Uddin. He also submits that there is no injury report in the case diary. 12. On the other hand, Mr. B. Hussain, learned counsel for the first informant has mainly opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 has collected money on the pretext of allotting Govt. land to the private individuals and he has been threatening the informant and if he is released on anticipatory bail at this stage, he would feel vulnerable loss as well as also influence on investigation. Hence, he opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner No.1. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials available on record including the order sheets and documents in connection with 8 cases mentioned in the enquiry report dated 17.03.2025 except Hojai P.S. Case No. 715/ 2015. 14. It appears that before lodging of the FIR by the informant against the present petitioners, the organization to whom they are affiliated namely AAMSU, Hojai District Committee had lodged similar FIR against 3 numbers of persons, alleging that they are trying to sell of Govt. grazing land to the private individuals. It also appears that the first informant is mainly opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner No. 1 Sobil Ahmed @ Sobil Uddin. However, on perusal of the documents relating to the 9 listed cases furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that against him in no case charge sheet has been filed on previous occasion. The materials available in the case diary does not Page No.# 7/8 substantiate the enquiry report dated 17.03.2025 which is available in the case diary. Thus, it prima facie appears that against petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 materials against them under section 111 of BNS,2023 is not there at this stage. As regards other two petitioners namely petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 2, in respect of the petitioner No. 2 only in one previous case, namely Murajhar P.S. Case No. 130/2016 charge sheet has been lodged whereas in respect of petitioner No. 3 though in 5 cases, charge sheet was filed on earlier occasions. However, out of those in 2 cases he has already been acquitted. 15. Considering the nature of accusation as well as facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of considered opinion that if sufficient conditions are imposed so as to ensure that the petitioners do not influence or threaten the informant or any of the witnesses and cooperate with the investigation, their custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 16. Hence, this anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of with a direction to the above named petitioners to appear before the Officer-In- Charge of Murajhar P.S. Case No. 40/2025, within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If they do so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of their arrest in connection with Murajhar P.S. Case No. 40/2025, they shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- each with a suitable surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation; and Page No.# 8/8 (ii) the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. (iii) It is hereby made clear that any violation of the above conditions, the court will entitled to make bail granted to them liable to be cancelled. 17. With this observation, the bail application is hereby disposed of. 18. The documents submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of 8 cases mentioned in the enquiry report dated 17.03.2025 by the Officer-in-Charge of Murajhar Police Station shall be kept as a part of record of this case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant