Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010144372025 2025:GAU-AS:9427 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2127/2025 SAFIKUL ALI S/O FARJUL ALI @ FAIJUL HAQUE @ FAJUL HOQUE R/O MAHBIYANI DEHAR KALAKUCHI DANGARDDI PS MUKALMUA DIST NALBARI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N MAHAJAN, MR. A CHAUDHURY,MR. P K DAS,MR. D BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 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 shown arrested in connection with Hajo P. S. Case No. 248/2025, registered under Sections 61(2)/319(1)/352/196 of BNS. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chaudhury, submits that the accused/petitioner's Facebook account was private in nature and that he has not made any such post as alleged in the FIR. However, the petitioner has been in custody for the last 35 days, and considering this aspect of the case, it is prayed that he may be enlarged on bail. 4. He further submitted that the case has been registered under Sections 319(1), 352, and 196 of the BNS. Among these, Sections 319(1) and 352 of the BNS are bailable offences, whereas Section 196 of the BNS, which carries a maximum punishment of five years, is non-bailable. In the present case, the petitioner was shown as arrested while already in custody in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 87/2025. He was also not served with notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS prior to being shown as arrested in connection with the present case. The petitioner is still ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the ongoing investigation, if granted the privilege of bail. 5. In this context, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused/petitioner. It is alleged that the Facebook post made by the accused/petitioner is propagandist in nature and Page No.# 3/3 directed against the nation, especially in the aftermath of the Pahelgam incident. He further submits that the case is still at the investigation stage. He raised objections to the bail prayer, submitting that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he may repeat similar offences, potentially causing a law and order situation. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, and upon perusal of the materials available in the case diary and the case record, it is observed that the accused/petitioner had created a Facebook profile in the name of "Laila Sonu" using the same URL and made offensive comments against the Country. As per the report of the Investigating Officer, there is probability that the accused/petitioner may hamper or tamper with the investigation if released on bail at this stage. Furthermore, it appears that other culprits may also be involved in the alleged offence, and the investigation is still ongoing. 7. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner, I am of the view that further custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth more facts related to the case. Accordingly, I find that this is not a fit case for granting the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail stands rejected. 8. In terms of above, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant