Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010096192025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1483/2025 BABUL AHMED S/O- LATE MAINUDDIN. R/O- VILL- DHANBANDA, P.S- BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 30.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. H. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Babul Ahmed who has been detained behind the bars since 09.04.2025 (for last 51 days) in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 71/2025 Page No.# 2/3 under Sections 140(2)/304(2)/115(2)/3(5) of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.02.2025, one Shahjahan Ali has filed an FIR naming therein three accused persons, inter alia, alleging that on 22.02.2025, the accused persons named in the FIR forcibly tied his brother’s hand and was taken to a building where his photographs with phone numbers of girls were taken and he was asked to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh). It is also alleged in the FIR that the accused persons abducted the informant and snatched away Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) from his possession and he was blackmailed to do so. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nor the petitioner has been named in the FIR neither the mobile numbers stated in the FIR belongs to the petitioner. He also submits that he has been arrested only on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused which is not true. He further submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 51 days and considering the period of detention he may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He has produced the case diary of Barpeta P.S. Case No. 71/2025 and has submitted that the petitioner is a member of a gang involved in blackmailing the ordinary persons by honey trapping them. He also submits that the arrested accused persons have implicated the petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. 6. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that during investigation, it was also found that Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) has been transferred to his account. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for Page No.# 3/3 both the sides. 8. Though, some incriminating materials are there in the case diary against the petitioner, however, considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner as well as the progress made in the investigation, his further custodial detention does not appear to be necessary, if he co-operates in the investigation. 9. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; (ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 10. With this observation, this bail application is disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant