Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010150822025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2220/2025 SAFI UDDIN AHMED S/O-LATE UDDUN AHMED, R/O- 1 NO- MIRIHULA, P.S- MORAN, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J HATIMURIA, A ISLAM,MR S H SIKDAR,MR S M ABDULLAH P,MR P TALUKDAR,MR. M KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 07.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Safi Uddin Ahmed, who has been detained in custody since 14.06.2025 in connection with Moran P.S. Case No. 62/2025 under Sections 308(5) of BNS read Page No.# 2/2 with Sections 10/13 of the UA (P)Act, 1967. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 05.06.2025, one Dhriti Sundar Dey had lodged an FIR before the O.C. Moran Police Station inter alia alleging that he has received threats call from mobile phone who has identified himself as Major Adyaman Asom from ULFA (independent) and it is also alleged that the caller has demanded of money from the informant and threatened him if he does not pay money his family would be harmed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named accused in the FIR and he is in no way involved with the alleged offence. He submits that the ground of arrest is not shown in the arrest memo and in the notice under Section 47 BNSS which was furnished to him at the time of his arrest. He also submits that the other grounds shown in the notice under Section 47 BNSS are not connected with alleged offence accusing the petitioner as land mafia and pendency of the other cases against him. He also submits that the seizure of stamp paper and signature of four land owners may also shown to be the ground for which he was arrested. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of arrest communicated to him does not have any link with the accusation made in the FIR. He also submits that the petitioner is languishing in custody for last 52 days and considering the period of detention and as the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation, therefore he may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner and has produced the case diary of Moran P.S. Case No. 62/2025. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and I have gone through the materials available on record including the case diary of Moran P.S. Case No. 62/2025, produced by the learned Addl. P.P. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials available in the case diary against the petitioner. Considering the incriminating materials, this court is reluctant to grant bail to +the petitioner at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. 9. The bail application is dismissed 10. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant