Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010144372025 2025:GAU-AS:9427 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2101/2025 SAFIKUL ALI HBIYANI DEHAR KALAKUCHI DANGARDDI P.S. MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A CHAUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 23.07.2025 Heard Mr. A. Chaudhury, learned counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, is preferred by the accused/petitioner, namely, Safikul Ali, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 17.06.2025 in connection with Hajo P. S. Case No. 87/2025, registered under Sections 296(b)/308(2) of BNS, read with Section 67 of the I. T. Act. 3. The Case Diary as called for, has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the case has been registered under Sections 296(b)/308(2) of the BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act. Among these, Section 296(b) of BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act are bailable offences, whereas Section 308(2) of the BNS is a non- bailable offence. However, from a perusal of the FIR, it appears that there was merely an attempt to extort money, which was unsuccessful, and no actual extortion took place in the present case. 5. He further submitted that after the arrest of the petitioner, he was placed in police custody and was thoroughly interrogated during that period. At present, the accused/petitioner has been in behind the bar for the last 37 days, and the police got ample opportunity to interrogate him while keeping him in Page No.# 3/4 custody. He also submitted that this is a case involving offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Furthermore, no notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was served on the petitioner prior to his arrest. In light of these aspects, he prays that the petitioner may be granted bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the further investigation of the case if granted the privilege of bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials available against the accused/petitioner, which reveal that objectionable posts containing obscene remarks were made from his own Facebook account targeting both the informant and his wife. The materials available in the case diary further indicate that an attempt was made by the petitioner to extort money, and it is alleged that he is involved in similar types of offences and has been using this method to extort money. Therefore, he raised a vehement objection and submitted that this is not a fit case for granting the privilege of bail solely based on the length of detention. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and upon perusal of the case diary, it is found that some incriminating materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer, and the investigation is still ongoing. However, without going into the detailed merits of the case, and considering the period of detention, i.e., 37 days, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the accused/petitioner does not appear to be necessary at this stage. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hajo, the Page No.# 4/4 accused/petitioner, namely, Safikul Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hajo, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 10. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant