Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010113202025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1743/2025 FAZAL HAQUE S/O MOHAMMAD ALI R/O VILL- NO. 3 ARIMARI P.S. KHARUPETIA, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED, N. CHOUDHURY,MR A. ALI,A. K. KANU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Fazal Haque, who has been detained behind the bars since 27.04.2025 (for last 46 days) in connection with Kharupetia P.S. Case No. 49/2025 Page No.# 2/3 under Section 152/196/197(1)/352/353 of BNS. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 27.04.2025, one Rahul Boruah, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Kharupetia Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner uploaded and shared some objectionable and seditious video in Facebook wherein it indirectly supported the enemy nation when hostility was going on between two countries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not uploaded the objectionable post as the mobile phone was not with him when it was uploaded. He further submits that the petitioner has already been detained behind the bars for the last 46 days and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail and has produced the case diary of Kharupetia P.S. Case No. 49/2025. He submits that the petitioner after coming to know that the post which he has uploaded in the Facebook is objectionable, he deleted the said post and, therefore, the post is not available and the Investigating Officer is now contacting the authorities of Facebook to get the said post. He, however, submits that the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS have stated that the petitioner has in fact uploaded an objectionable video. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. Apart from the accusation made in the FIR as well as in the statement of the witnesses that an objectionable video has been posted by the petitioner in the Facebook, nothing is there in the case diary to indicate what that objectionable video was. However, in any view of the matter, the petitioner has already been detained behind the bars for last 46 days and considering the period of detention Page No.# 3/3 as well as the nature of the accusation made against him, this Court is of considered opinion that if he co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Kharupetia P.S. Case No. 49/2025. 8. In view of above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldoi, 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; 9. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. 10. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant