Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010232272025 2025:GAU-AS:14717 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3379/2025 MD JELIL AHMED AND ANR SON OF CIRAJ ALI, RESIDENT OF MECHAGARH, BURAGOHAI BARI, PO- MECHAGARH, DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. 2: MD HAMID ALI SON OF MD. SAMID ALI RESIDENT OF AMGURI GAON JOYSAGAR DISTRICT-SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHOUDHURY, MR J DAS,MR T CHAKRABORTY,MR. R K SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 31.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Page No.# 2/4 the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Md. Jelil Ahmed and 2. Md. Hamid Ali, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 119/2025, under Sections 61(2)/305(e)/287/288/125(b) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 23 of Petroleum Act, 1934, R/W Section 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, R/W Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 11.08.2025, one Atul Das, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge of Sivasagar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 09.08.2025 approximately at 6:30 PM, the informant received a telephonic information regarding one dumper burst while the said vehicle was being welded in the godown belonging to one Jelil Ahmed. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that 2(two) workers, namely, Muzakir Ali and Abdul Jelil sustained serious injuries in the burst and during inquiry, it was found that suspected crude oil was illegally stored in the godown constructed underground with underground chamber in order to prevent detection. 5. Denying their involvement in the alleged offence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land where the alleged incident is stated to have taken place belongs to Chiraj Ali, the father of the petitioner no.1 and that he had leased the same to one Sanjay Sharma from Himachal Pradesh. The said lease is still Page No.# 3/4 subsisting till 31.12.2026; therefore, any operations on that land would be within the knowledge of the lessee rather than the family of the petitioner no.1. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two co-accused were granted interim bail by this Court. 7. The case diary has been received. 8. The present two accused persons seeking bail herein were arrested on 31.08.2025 and it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the context of the addition of penal provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, the applicable statutory period would be 90 days. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have already spent considerable time in under trial detention. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State strongly opposes the bail and submits that on the basis of the investigation conducted so far, as reflected in the case diary which has been received – it has been found that the accused persons are involved in running a racket of storing and selling such petroleum products illegally. The investigation has also revealed the creation of a special chamber in the godown for storing such crude oil illegally and that these activities were discovered only when a supposedly converted dumper vehicle containing such crude oil allegedly blasted. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the investigation is going on and perhaps bail should Page No.# 4/4 not be considered at this stage. 11. It is also submitted by the prosecution that the lessee named Sanjay Sharma of Himachal Pradesh does not find any reference in the investigation and that the said lease deed is neither available in the case diary nor has any such lease deed been found during the investigation so far. 12. It is also submitted by the prosecution that the alleged offences are of a serious and organized nature. 13. The contentions of the prosecution in the backdrop of the materials revealed by the investigation cannot be brushed aside lightly. Despite the length of detention, considering the nature of the alleged offences, the materials revealed and the continuance of the investigation, bail stands rejected at this stage. 14. Return back the case diary. 15. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant