Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010230232025 2025:GAU-AS:15263 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3345/2025 RUPAM BARUAH S/O. BOLIN BARUAH, R/O. VILL.- BALIPUKHURI, P/S. GINGIA, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P GOGOI, MR. B. DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 12.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused applicant, namely, Rupam Baruah, praying for grant of bail in connection with Biswanath Chariali P.S Case No.170/2025 registered under Section 79/319/294(2)/296/308(4) of BNS, 2023, R/W Section 66/66(C)/67(A)/67 of the IT Act, 2000. 3. The gist of the allegation made in the FIR lodged by the victim before the Officer-in-Charge of Biswanath Chariali police station on 18.09.2025 is that some unknown miscreants have created a fake account in her name on Instagram and Facebook and thereby, uploaded obscene photographs and sent threatening messages demanding money. 4. After receipt of the FIR, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and has found sufficient materials against one Rupam Baruah, the accused applicant and the aforesaid case was registered against the accused applicant. 5. On the very next day i.e. on 19.09.2025, the accused Page No.# 3/4 applicant was presented before the CJM, Biswanath Chariali, Assam and thereafter, he was sent to judicial custody on rejection of his bail application dated 19.09.2025. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused applicant that the accused applicant is not a habitual offender and in fact he was not a creator of the fake account of the alleged victim girl. 7. The learned counsel for the accused applicant further submits that since he has already spent 54 days in judicial custody and investigation is almost complete in the matter, he should be allowed to go on bail. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that there are serious allegations against the accused applicant and the investigation is still going on, therefore, the accused applicant should not be granted bail at this stage without perusing the case diary. 9. This Court has gone through the allegations made in the FIR, gone through the other materials brought before this Court and has also heard the submissions made by the respective counsel. 10. After taking the entire facts including the fact that the accused applicant has already spent more than 54 days in judicial custody, this Court is of the opinion that the above-named accused applicant be allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only with one surety of like nature subject to the satisfaction of the Court of learned CJM, Biswanath Chariali with Page No.# 4/4 following conditions: (i) That the accused applicant shall co-operate with the investigation as and when required; (ii) That the accused applicant 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 of the case before the Investigating Officer; (iii) That the accused applicant shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant