Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010185512025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2791/2025 SAYED TARIF ULLAH AHMED S/O SAYED RABIULLAH AHMED @ RABIULLAH AHMED VILL- NELLIE BAGISA NO. 1 P.S. JAGIROAD DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : S K PODDAR 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. K. Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 petitioner, namely, Sayed Tarif Ullah Ahmed, who has been detained behind the Page No.# 2/4 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. It is also alleged that some fake interviews and appointment letters were also issued by them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is a young boy of 24 years of age. He submits that in this case, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been laid and one of the charge-sheeted co-accused person (A5) has been shown as an absconder in the charge sheet. 4. He further, submits that petitioner is 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 petitioner is ready to cooperate in trial. Hence, he submits that considering the long detention of the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in trial he may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 3/4 opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. 7. He submits that the petitioner 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 petitioner is 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. 10. On the perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that the offences under which the charge sheet has been laid against the present petitioner 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 petitioner 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. Page No.# 4/4 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 petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of PRC Case No. 694/2025; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and v. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 15. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant