Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010166722025 2025:GAU-AS:10408 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2419/2025 MUSTAFA AHMED LASKAR SON OF LT. SAJ UDDIN LASKAR, VILL- BOALIPAR PT.II, P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS A BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 08.08.2025. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of regular bail to the accused petitioner, who has been arrested on 05.06.2025, in Page No.# 2/4 connection with Panchgram P.S. Case No. 23/2015, under Section 113(3)/197(1)/352/353 of the BNS, 2023. The scanned copy of the TCR has been received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused petitioner is in custody since 05.06.2025 and the case has already been charge sheeted against the present petitioner. He further submitted that the earlier bail petition i.e. Bail Application No.2161/2025, filed by the present petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the case diary but as the case has already been charge sheeted, there is no chance of hampering or tampering with the investigation of the case. So considering his length of detention, the petitioner may be released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner being the permanent resident of his addressed locality, there is no question of absconding, rather he will regularly appear before the Court and contest the case regularly. Mr. Barbhuiya further submitted that in fact, the minor son of the petitioner has mistakenly shared the objectionable video in the facebook and the petitioner having come to know about the same, immediately deleted the same. Furthermore, the FIR was lodged about one month after the incident and till then, there was no untoward incident happened on the basis of the said video footage, which was allegedly shared by the petitioner. Mr. Barbhuiya further raised the issue that this case is also registered under Section 113(3) of the BNS, 2023 and as per the explanation of the said Section, the endorsement of the Superintendent of Police is required before registering a case under the said Section of law. But here in this case, it was not registered under the due permission of the Superintendent of Police and due to non- fulfillment of the said legal provision also, the arrest of the present petitioner Page No.# 3/4 may be considered as illegal. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused petitioner and considering those incriminating materials, the FIR was lodged and subsequently, on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was also filed against the present petitioner. He further submitted that the accused petitioner himself had admitted in his statement made before the I.O. that the said objectionable video was shared by himself, wherein the Hon’ble Prime Minister of the country was also abused. The video is also provocative in nature which was allegedly shared with the intention to create hatred amongst the citizens and to cause public unrest. Mr. Sarma further submitted that the case was charge sheeted only on 27.07.2025 and six (6) witnesses have been cited by the prosecution but till date no prosecution witness could be examined as charge could not be framed. He further submitted that the petitioner had not only admitted that he shared the objectionable video but also stated that he also liked the video and also shared various comments in the said facebook post. Thus he is otherwise supporting the enemy of the country, which may create public unrest in the society. Mr. Sarma further submitted that from the charge sheet it is seen that the prosecution sanction is yet to obtain and that is under process. Accordingly, it is submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner, considering the nature and gravity of the offence. Further he submitted that hampering or tampering with the witnesses also cannot be denied at this stage. Page No.# 4/4 Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the TCR and the case diary. It seen that his earlier bail petition was rejected considering the materials available in the case diary and also considering his admission in regard to the sharing of objectionable video in facebook, which the petitioner has also admitted in his statement. It is also an admitted fact that the charge sheet has already been laid, without obtaining the prosecution sanction, but it can be obtained during the trial of the case. But considering the nature and gravity of the offence and other aspects of the case, the probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be denied at this stage. In view of all, I do not find it to be justified to allow the petitioner to go on bail at this stage, solely considering his length of detention and accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant