Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010166542025 2025:GAU-AS:10490 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2442/2025 CHAYAN ROY S/O LT. BACHU ROY R/O LALA 2ND, WARD NO. 8, P.S. LALA DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM PIN-788163. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. Som, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Page No.# 2/5 Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Chayan Roy, who has been detained behind the bars in connection with CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 5/2025, under Sections 308(2)/351(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 67(A)/66(D) of IT Act, 2000. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.04.2025, the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of CID Cyber Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the informant came in contact with the petitioner through social media platform, i.e., facebook in the month of January, 2025 and thereafter, they developed a romantic relationship. 4. It is alleged in the FIR, after a few days the petitioner told the informant that he had received some messages from unknown facebook account of one Alauddin Ahmed, where he has threatened of vulgar and off seen video of the petitioner and the informant in compromising position in the social media and asked for amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). 5. It is alleged in the FIR that accordingly the informant took loan from Muthoot finance company and paid Rs. 1.2 lakhs to the petitioner for paying the same to the blackmailer. 6. It is alleged in the FIR that on several occasions, the petitioner told Page No.# 3/5 the informant regarding the threat by different persons of uploading the off seen video of the informant and the petitioner demanding money in lieu of that. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and no accusation has been made against him in the FIR. She submits that the petitioner and the informant were in romantic relationship since long and some dispute arose between them and therefore, she lodged the FIR. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has admitted the fact of receiving money from the informant, but that was only for business purpose. She submits that no off seen video has been uploaded in any facebook account. She also submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 5/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 10. He submits that during investigation, it was found that the facebook account in which the off seen photographs of the informant and the petitioner were uploaded were fake account from the mobile phone of the present petitioner only. 11. She submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the Case Diary to indicate that the petitioner in view of duping the informant himself used to send messages in his phone through fake Page No.# 4/5 accounts and through unknown numbers. 12. She also submits that as the petitioner is a student of BA 2nd Semester and as he is ready to co-operate in the investigation, he may be allowed to go on bail. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is still at earlier stage and considering the incriminating materials available against the petitioner, he prays for dismissing the bail application. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 15. I have also perused the statement of the victim girls recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. 16. It appears that at this stage of the investigation there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary, indicating to the complicity of the petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. 17. Considering the stage of the investigation as well as incriminating materials present in the Case Diary, this Court is reluctant to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 18. The prayer for bail is therefore, rejected. 19. Send back the Case Diary. 20. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant