Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010262332025 2025:GAU-AS:17352-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/82/2025 UTPAL BORAH @ UTPAL AXOM SON OF SRI ATUL BORAH, R/O- VILLAGE ASOIBARI GAON, PO CHOWTANG (VIA BAHONA), PS JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785101 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781007 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JORHAT DISTRICT ASSAM PIN- 785001 4:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE JORHAT POLICE STATION DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PULIBOR POLICE STATION JORHAT DISTRICT ASSAM PIN- 785006 Page No.# 2/9 6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE BADARPUR POLICE STATION DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 78880 Advocate for the Petitioner : A K GOGOI, MR. D BARUAH,A GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER (Oral) Date : 15.12.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction for consolidation/ clubbing of the multiple FIRs relating to the same incident, being (a) Jorhat P.S. Case No. 500/2025, under sections 125/189(2)/189(3)/190/192/196(2)/353(2) of the BNS, 2023, (b) Pulibor P.S. Case No. 122/2025, under sections 49/ 121(2)/74/75(2)/189(2)/189(3)/190/285/126(2)/223/132 of the BNS, 2023, and (c) FIR purportedly lodged against the petitioner at Badarpur Police Station, as reported in a social media post, a print-out of which is annexed to this writ petition. Page No.# 3/9 3) In this writ petition, it is projected that the petitioner, out of deep emotion and sentimental love towards a particular deceased person, demanded that his last rites be performed in his native district. Thereafter, on 21.09.2025, a group of persons came and started protesting by blocking roads; forcing shops and business establishments to shut down; and a section of unruly youths also blocked the National Highway, thereby preventing the movement of the vehicles. The said incident occurred on 21.09.2025. The petitioner projects that he is a reporter of a news channel and had posted a live video on social media page. It is alleged by persons lodging the FIRs against the petitioner that the said social media post had inciting people to gather and to resort to protest. 4) In respect of those incidents, the Officer-in-Charge of ISBT PP had lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Pulibor Police Station, Jorhat on 23.09.2025, which was numbered as ISBT PP GDE No. 361 dated 21.09.2025, which was thereafter registered as Pulibor P.S. Case No. 122/2025, under Sections 49/121(2)/74/75(2)/189(2)/189(3)/190/285/126(2)/223/132 of the BNS. 5) The petitioner has projected that on the same incident, one Manoj Kumar Borah had also lodged a separate FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat Police Station on 23.09.2025, which was registered as Jorhat P.S. Case No. 500/2025, under Sections 125/189(2)/189(3)190/192/196(2)/353(2) of the BNS. As per the said FIR, the petitioner had instigated people, which led to a large gathering at Baruah Chariali, Jorhat, leading to physical blockage of National Highway and destructing public order, further alleging that the petitioner had made derogatory remarks and attempted to malign the character Page No.# 4/9 of the wife of the said deceased person, thereby outraging her modesty and reputation. 6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been able to collect a copy of the purported third FIR, which, as per social media report, was lodged at Badarpur Police Station. However, it is submitted that as per the social media post, the said FIR is also for the same incident. 7) In support of his submissions that multiple FIR’s should be clubbed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases, viz., T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 189, and (ii) Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Anr. (2020), 14 SCC 12. 8) Per contra, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that though the two FIRs, registered as (a) Jorhat P.S. Case No. 500/2025, and (b) Pulibor P.S. Case No. 122/2025 have been lodged on the same date, i.e., 23.09.2025, but the same refer to separate and distinct offences. 9) Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gave our anxious consideration to the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10) For ready reference, the contents of both the FIRs, bring Pulibor P.S. Case No. 122/2025 and Jorhat P.S. Case No.500/2025 are quoted hereinbelow:- Pulibor P.S. Case No. 122/2025 “Sir, Page No.# 5/9 With due respect, I have the honour to report that xxx (name masked) a prominent xxx (profession masked) of Assam died on xxx (date and place masked) while he was there for attending the xxx (name of program masked). Following his demise, on 21.09.2025 a reporter of PRAG NEWS namely Utpal Borah of Jorhat posted a live video on his Facebook page wherein he is seen inciting to gather in thousands of people to resort to protest. Accordingly, large number of people (20000 approx) have gathered at Baruah Chariali, Jorhat and there Utpal Borah along with Anup Dutta, Utpal Khound and Raja Bailung had instigated the people to do subversive activities and called for a NH blockade at Jorhat against the Government of Assam's decision for not bringing the mortal remains of xxx (name masked) to Jorhat. On the same day at about 10:30 PM, a large unlawful assembly of approximately 5000 persons gathered at NH-715, near Ajanta Bypass, Jorhat and resorted to a blockade of the road without obtaining any lawful permission. The unlawful assembly obstructed the movement of public transport, emergency vehicles, and general commuters, thereby causing serious inconvenience and danger to public safety. The mob, by raising slogans and creating obstructions, wilfully disrupted public order and peace in the area. Further the persons participating in the mob tried to molest female police officers on duty and also assaulted officers and personnel on duty. Further, the unruly mob tried to vandalize police vehicle of officers and personnel on duty. Also, the mob pelted stones at the on duty police personnel thereby causing injuries of the personnel on duty and also had potential threats of damaging the public vehicles running on the NH thereby causing threats to the life of the public. The mob had also brought tyres to burn on the NH as a mark of protest which had likelihood of damaging the NH along with threat of lives of people gathered and public property as two Indian Oil Tankers were seen stranded on the Highway along with other vehicles that were stopped by the protestors. It is to be noted that despite consistent by the District Magistrate and the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jorhat, the crowd did not disperse and continued to block the National Highway for more than 26 hours and violated the prohibitory order U/S 163 BNSS given by Hon’ble District Magistrate, Jorhat, Assam on 01.09.2025 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Assam order which declares the road blockades as illegal. The act of the instigators Utpal Borah, Anup Dutta, Utpal Khound and Raja Bailung, Sonu Sahoo, Lekhon Robidas, Manoj Bora, Lakhindar Borah, Budhin Saikia, Pranjal Deka, Durlov Kumar Satola, Biswajit Borah, along with the mob amounts to offences punishable under sections 49/121(2)/74/75(2)/189(2)/189(3)/190/285/126(2)/223/132 BNS. Page No.# 6/9 Therefore, I request that necessary action be taken against the above- mentioned persons for their act. * * * Jorhat P.S. Case No.500/2025 Sir, That in reference to the above it is humbly submitted that : 1) That on 19th September 2025, renowned singer of Assam, xxx (name masked), passed away at xxx (place masked). That there were requests from Jorhat district for his last rites to be held at Jorhat, where xxx (name masked0 spent his formative years. That Assam State cabinet considered both Jorhat and Sonapur near Guwahati for his last rites, leaving the final decision to the family of deceased. That finally, deceased's wife and other family members chose xxx (pace masked) for the last rites, being close to their residence. 2) That despite the lawful and expressed wishes of the family, one person namely Utpol Axom @ Utpol Bora, taking undue advantage of the emotional sentiments of the people of Assam, particularly Jorhat, exploiting the sentiment of people in Jorhat started instigating the mass gathering and demanding that the last rites of xxx (name masked) be performed at Jorhat. That on 20-09-2023 and 21-09-2025 evening at Baruah Chariali Jorhat, he openly threatened in public and social media that unless the funeral was held at Jorhat, the public would stall Jorhat City. 3) That under his instigation and influence, a part of large gathering of thousands assembled at Borua Chariali, Jorhat, created law and order problems. Some people, provoked by him, resorted to illegal blockade of the National Highway passing through Jorhat, disrupting public order and causing hardship to the general public. Said Utpol Axom @ Utpol Borah further made derogatory remarks and attempts to malign the character of the wife of xxx (name masked), namely yyy (name masked) thereby outraging her modesty and reputation. 4) It has also been found that the said Utpol Axom @ Utpol Borah had earlier made derogatory comments against xxx (name masked0 on social media but opportunistically exploited the emotions of the people for his malafide and guilty intention, causing unrest and violence. That his act promoted enmity between different groups and the followers and fan of late xxx (name masked) from Jorhat and other part of the State effecting public harmony. That sir, Utpol Axom's actions constitute multiple serious offences hence, I Page No.# 7/9 request you to kindly register a case against Utpol Axom @ Utpol Borah under appropriate sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. That his acts affected life and liberty of peace loving citizens and caused serious threats also.” * * * 11) In the social media report regarding the lodging of the FIR at Badarpur Police station, the said social media post discloses as follows “Trouble deepens for Jorhat- based journalist Utpal Borah as an FIR has been lodged against him at Badarpur Police Station in Sribhumi district.” 12) In the case of T.T. Antony (supra), it has been held to the effect that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same subject. 13) In the case T.T. Antony (supra), the second FIR in respect of the same facts was registered after about three years. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had quashed the FIR, registered as Crime No.268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station, so far it related to the Assistant Superintendent of Police. Nonetheless, it was left open to the investigating agency to seek permission in Crime Nos. 353/94 or 354/94 of the Magistrate to make further investigation. 14) In the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra), the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India was the Editor-in-Chief of an English TV News channel. On 16.04.2020, three persons including two sadhus were brutally assaulted and killed in Gadchinchal village of Palghar District in Maharashtra. In a news show, the petitioner had raised issue regarding tardy investigation of the incident. Alleging that the airing of the said news propagated views which were communal in nature, numerous complaints were instituted in the State of Page No.# 8/9 Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telengana, Jharkhand as well as in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court of India, held that the allegations against the petitioner is based on the same incident dated 21.04.2020. Allowing one FIR to be investigated, subject to the right of the petitioner to pursue such remedies as are available in that regard, other FIRs were quashed. 15) In the present case in hand, in the FIR which was lodged as Pulibor P.S. Case No. 122/2025, the complaint was regarding unlawful assembly which obstructed the movement of public transport and vehicle and commuters, causing serious and danger to public safety and disrupted public order and peace in the area and it was also alleged that the persons in the mob tried to molest female police officers on duty and also assaulted officers and personnel on duty. It was also alleged that the mob had vandalized police vehicles of officers and personal on duty and the mob pelted stones on police personnel causing injuries of the personnel duty and there was potential threat of damage to public vehicles because the mob had brought tyres to burn on the road and two Indian Oil tankers were seen stranded on the road on being stopped by the protestors, and that despite persuasion by the police, the protestors continued to block the National Highway. 16) However, in the before Jorhat Police Station, apart from disruption of traffic in National Highway and roads, the complaint was also regarding the derogatory remarks and attempts to malign the character of the wife of the deceased person, thereby outraging her modesty and reputation. Moreover, it was also complained that the petitioner had earlier made derogatory remarks against the deceased. It was also alleged that the act of the Page No.# 9/9 petitioner had created enmity between different groups and affected public harmony. 17) Therefore, the offences complained of in the two FIRs are dissimilar, save and except for the traffic obstruction in the roads and National Highway. Therefore, this Court is disinclined to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIRs. 18) However, this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner and/or the investigating officer for invoking the provisions of Section 242 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 219 Cr.P.C. for charging the accused together. Moreover, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to pursue such other remedy as may be available to him in respect of the FIRs against him. 19) Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition stands closed at the “motion” stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant