Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010190992025 2025:GAU-AS:11655 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2802/2025 BAHARUL ISLAM S/O SORHAB ALI R/O NO. 1 JARAGURI, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 29.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed Page No.# 2/3 by the petitioner, namely, Baharul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 11.08.2025 in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 95/2025 under Sections 299/196/352/353(2) BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that one Manash Jyoti Saikia, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Manikpur police station on 11.08.2025, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner has posted some derogatory remarks towards Lord Shri Ram in the “Instagram”, and same has been relied on with a deliberate attempt to hurt the religious sentiment. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and his phone was hacked by some unknown persons. 5. He also submits that the petitioner on 11.08.2025 himself went to Manikpur police station to make a complaint in this regard and showed his mobile phone to the police Officer-in-charge. However, police after noticing the instagram post, had seized the mobile phone and also arrested him. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the mobile phone of the petitioner has been seized and as he has been detained behind the bars for the last 19 days, and as he is ready to co-operate in the investigation, he may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the mobile phone of the petitioner has already been seized. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 9. Considering the nature of accusation and the fact that the mobile phone of the petitioner has been seized as well as considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioner may not be required for fair Page No.# 3/3 completion of the investigation if he co-operates in the investigation. 10. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the above-named petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 11. Send back the Case Diary. 12. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant