Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010153502025 2025:GAU-AS:11076 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2249/2025 MONOWAR HUSSAIN S/O- OSMAN ALI. R/O- VILL.- SHINGIMARI, PO. AND P.S.- CHAPAR, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783371 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. R A CHOUDHURY,MR. B.H. TAPADAR,MR. I U CHOWDHURY,A.ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 20-08-2025 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I.U. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.S. Lahakar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 2/3 State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 29.04.2025 in connection with Sessions Case No. 36/2025 u/s 152/196/197(1)(a)/113(3)/352/353 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 arising out of Chapar P.S. Case No. 68/2025. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. 4. Mr. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present accused/petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2025 and case has already been charge-sheeted and charge is also framed accordingly against the accused/petitioner. However, till date no evidence could be examined by the prosecution. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that the act which was committed by the present petitioner was not intentional and accidentally he clicked the bottom of the mobile and the objectionable post was shared through his mobile. Further, he submitted that there are some discrepancies in the FIR, wherein in one part of the FIR it is stated that he shared the message, on the other hand it is alleged that he made comment on the said message. But, considering the length of detention of the present accused/petitioner, he may be released on bail. 5. Mr. Lahakar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the statement made by the witnesses u/s 181 BNSS and also the statement made by the present accused/petitioner, it is seen that he shared the objectionable post after the Pahelgam incident wherein by supporting the enemy country. Thus, his involvement in the alleged offence is serious in nature and that apart the hampering and tampering the evidence of witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage and accordingly he raised serious objection and Page No.# 3/3 submitted that it may not be a fit case to extend the privilege of bail at this stage. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case records, it is seen that as per the FIR allegation, the present petitioner has shared the objectionable post by supporting the enemy country, when the entire nation is mourning the Pahelgam terror attack. 7. Considering the nature of the offence alleged against the accused/petitioner, I find that probability of hampering or tampering the evidence of the witnesses cannot be denied at this stage and hence the prayer for bail by the present petitioner is hereby rejected at this stage. 8. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant