Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010134752025 2025:GAU-AS:9175 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2104/2025 JARIP ALI S/O- LATE RAHIM KHAN @ UDDIN. R/O- VILL.- PAKA BETBARI PAM, P.O.- PAKA BETBARI PATHAR, P.S. AND DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781352. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM, N. UDDIN,MR S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been Page No.# 2/4 filed by the petitioner, namely, Jarip Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 26.04.2025 in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 153/2025 under Sections 152/196/197(1)(a)/352/353 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 25.04.2025, one Chinmoy Hazarika, SI of Police of Barpeta Police Station had lodged an FIR, before the Officer-In-Charge of Barpeta Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on that day, an information was received from Cyberdome Social Media Centre that a “facebook” account namely “Sharif Sing” had commented in the Live post against the Hindu religion and during preliminary inquiry it was found that the said facebook” account belongs to the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that the comment in the post which was uploaded in facebook was made against a religion and therefore, adding of Section 196 in this case was appropriate, but it does not attract the provisions of Section 152 of BNSS, 2023 as the act of posting a comment against a particular religion may not be regarded as an act endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has already been detained behind the bars for the last 82 days and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 3/4 produced the Case Diary of Barpeta P.S. Case No. 153/2025 and has submitted that the investigation has fairly progressed and during the course of investigation, sufficient materials were found to indicate the complicity of the present petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. He however, submits that the investigation is almost complete. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary. As the investigation is almost complete, and as the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 82 days, considering the above aspects, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, as if he co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of investigation of the aforesaid case. 8. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person 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. 9. Send back the Case Diary. 10. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly Page No.# 4/4 disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant