Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010185512025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2694/2025 SAKIL JUNAIYED ALIAS MD SAKIL JUNAIYED SON OF ARIF MD. BAHARUL ISLAM, RESIDENT OF VILL- DIGHALI, P.S. RUPAHIHAT, DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,MS SURAYA RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Bail Appln./2714/2025 MD SAIQUL ISLAM AND ANR SON OF SURAJ ALI R/O KAWAIMARI P.S. NAGAON SADAR DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 2: MD. TUFAIL AHMED S/O LT. LUKMAN HEKIM R/O RUPOHI THANA ROAD P.S. ROPOHIHAT DIST. NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS Page No.# 2/5 THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 08.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioners, namely, (1) Md. Saiqul Islam, and (2) Md. Tufail Ahmed who have been detained behind the bars since 07.06.2025 (for the last 94 days) in connection with PRC Case No. 694/2025 corresponding to Jagiroad P. S. Case No. 126/2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 356(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in that case is that on 03.06.2025, one Arup Jyoti Sharma had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Jagiroad Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that though, the Tata Projects Ltd., TSAT, Morigaon had not published any advertisement anywhere for recruitment drive in their ongoing project at TSAT Jagiroad. However, the informant had received an information that one Saiqul Ali of Nagaon and some of his associates have collected huge amount of money in the name of offering employment at TSAT Project. Page No.# 3/5 4. He further, submits that petitioners are languishing behind the bars since for last 94 days and there is unlikelihood of commencement of the trial at the earliest due to the fact that one of the co-accused is absconding and is yet to appear before the Trial Court. 5. He further submits that all the offences involved in this case do not entail punishment of imprisonment for more than 7 years and the petitioners are ready to cooperate in trial. Hence, he submits that considering the long detention of the petitioners and considering the fact that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in trial they may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 7. He submits that the petitioners along with the other co-accused persons has been found to be involved in issuing fake call letters and appointment letters to innocent persons, who were duped to pay money against assurance of getting appointment in TSAT, Jagiroad. He further, submits that considering the nature of accusation in this case the Trial Court has rejected the bail application and same has been correctly done. He also submits that a prayer has been also made before the Trial Court by the prosecuting agency to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused No.A5 who has been shown as an absconder in this case. 8. He also submits that the trial is at a very initial stage and even appearance of all the accused persons have not yet been completed. Hence, he submits that if the petitioners are allowed to go on bail or at this stage it may hamper the fair trial. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. Page No.# 4/5 10. On the perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that the offences under which the charge sheet has been laid against the present petitioners as well as against the co-accused persons do not entail punishment of imprisonment for more than seven years. It also appears that the relevant documents and materials have been seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation and the investigation has completed. 11. It also appears that there is no material on record which would suggest that the petitioners may abscond or may evade the course of justice. 12. There is also no material on record to suggest that they may involve in threatening or influencing the witnesses. 13. As such, considering the fact that the charge sheet has already been laid in this case as well as considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 14. Accordingly, the petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court with the following conditions: i. That the petitioners shall cooperate in the trial of PRC Case No. 694/2025 which is pending in the Trial Court; ii. That the petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Page No.# 5/5 Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit their leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and v. That the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 15. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant