Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010209552025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3027/2025 MD SHAKIL AHMMED ALIAS MD SHAKIL AHMED S/O LUTFUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILL- DIGHIRPAR BUNDASHIL, P.O. AND P.S. BADARPUR DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. B.H. TAPADAR,A.ISLAM,MR. N MAHAJAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 26 .09. 2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent. This application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Md. Shakil Ahmmed @ Md. Shakil Ahmed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail in connection with Karimganj P.S. Case No. 298/2025 under Sections 61(2)/ 318(4)/316(2)/ 316(5) of Page No.# 2/4 BNS, 2023 read with Section 21(1)/ 21(2)/ 21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. 2019. The allegation made against the petitioner is that on 19. 06.2025, the informant lodged an FIR before the O.C. , Karimganj P.S. alleging inter alia that the FIR named accused Rajdeep Deb and Md. Shakil Ahmed in a criminal conspiracy cheated the informant with financial fraud and criminal deception and criminal breach of trust by falsely projecting one of the accused as professional stock market trader and financial advisor. On receipt of the FIR, Karimganj P.S. Case No. 298/2025 under Sections 61(2)/ 318(4)/316(2)/ 316(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 21(1)/ 21(2)/ 21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. 2019 has been registered and investigation started and the petitioner was apprehended. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was earlier arrested in connection with Badarpur P.S. Case No. 48/2025 and in that case he has been detained in custody for 60 days whereafter he was granted days. But subsequently, the instant case has been lodged at Karimganj Police Station on virtually the same allegations and the same has been done with the mala fide intention. And the petitioner has been behind the bar for 50 days for the second time. It is further submitted that in the instant case, Section 365 BNS would not be attracted as there exists a Special law i.e. the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2017) 2 SCC 18. It is the special Act that would be attracted and not general act i.e. BNS and as per the provision of the Special Act under Sections 21(1), 21(2) and 21(3) of the said Act, the statutory period is 60 days. Page No.# 3/4 In Sharat Babu Digumarti (Supra) it is held that:- “37. Theaforesaid passages clearly shows that if legislative intendment is discernible that a latter enactment shall prevail, the same is to be interpreted in accord with the said intention. We have already referred to the scheme of the IT Act and how obscenity pertaining to electronic record falls under the scheme of the Act. We have also referred to Sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act. Once the Special provisions having the overriding effect do cover a criminal act and the offender, he gets out of the net of the IPC and in this case, Section 292. It is apt to note here that electronic forms of transmission are covered by the IT Act, which is a special law. It is settled position in law that a special law shall prevail over the general and prior law. When the Act in various provisions deals with obscenity in electric form it covers the offence under Section 292 IPC. . The learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. Having regard to the above as well as the period of detention of 50 days and having regard to the allegation as reflected in the present FIR as well as the progress of the investigation, further detention is not necessary. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner named above be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi in connection with the aforementioned case. It is further provided that the petitioners shall not try to influence the witnesses in any manner and shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant