Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010244532025 2025:GAU-AS:14960 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3572/2025 ABDUL JABBAR BARBHUIYA ALIAS SAINUL HOQUE BARBHUIYA SON OF MONIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF DHANIPUR, WARD NO 10, SONAI MUNICIPAL BOARD, PO SONAI, PS SONAI, DISTRICT CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN -788119 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K HUSSAIN, MR. M ALOM,MS. F H AHMED,MRS. S Y AHMED,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 06.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Sonai P.S. Case No. 72/2025, registered under Sections 194/196/299/353 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 66 of the IT Act. 3. It is submitted that the accused-applicant was arrested on 29.10.2025 and he has been behind the bar since 30.10.2025. 4. The gist of the case is that an FIR was lodged on 24.10.2025 by one Saharul Alom before the Officer-in-Charge of Sonai Police Station, alleging that the accused-applicant had posted a comment on Facebook, which was objectionable, attacking and defamatory in nature and which had the potential to create social disharmony. It was also alleged in the FIR that it could lower the dignity of the informant’s community, thereby causing disturbance to the law and order situation. 5. After filing of the FIR, the Sonai P.S. Case No. 47/2025 was registered against the accused-applicant, under Sections 109(1)/118(2)/191(2)/311. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that the comment so allegedly made by the accused-applicant does not attract the sections that have been invoked in the present case against the accused-applicant. He submits that the accused- applicant, in fact, belongs to the same community of the informant and therefore, there is no question of lowering the dignity of the community of the informant by posting such comments by the accused-applicant. He submits that, in fact, the accused-applicant has only responded to a comment that was already posted on the Facebook and his response was without any intention to cause any disharmony in the community or to disturb the law and order situation. He submits that a bare reading of the comment so made by the accused-applicant does not reveal any offensive or objectionable language or speech, which has the potential of attracting the sections drawn against him. He submits that the alleged sections were drawn against him in a mechanical manner without actually examining and perusing the comment so made. Therefore, he prays that Page No.# 3/4 since the accused-applicant is in judicial custody for the last 7 (Seven) days, further custodial detention of the accused-applicant is not required and therefore, this Court should grant bail to the accused-applicant. 7. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the case is in a initial stage of investigation. Therefore, at this stage, bail may not be granted to the accused-applicant. 8. This Court has gone through the FIR, the alleged comment made in Facebook, rejection of bail vide order dated 30.10.2025 by the learned JMFC, Cachar and also heard the submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 9. In the instant case, the allegations as mentioned in the FIR are of provocation to commit communal disharmony and lowering the dignity of a community with an intention to breach the public peace by posting the alleged comment in the Facebook by the accused-applicant. However, while perusing the comment so made by the accused- applicant, I did not find any offensive content which can create disharmony or breach of peace in the society or defaming a community at large. Even if it is accepted that the accused-applicant is the author of the Facebook post, even then, in the absence of other incriminating materials, it is doubtful as to whether, the contents of the Facebook comment thereof alone would constitute a cognizable offence. In view of the above, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the accused-applicant would be uncalled for in this case. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the accused-applicant is directed to forthwith be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) and a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, subject to the following conditions: - (1) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for and fully co-operate in the investigation of the case. Page No.# 4/4 (2) The accused-applicant shall not hamper the investigation nor tamper with any evidence or influence any witnesses connected with the case. 11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant