Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010001982025 2025:GAU-AS:682 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./27/2025 SALIM SEIKH @ SELIM SEIKH S/O KALU SEIKH AND A PERMENTE RESIDENT OF ISLAMPUR, PO HASSANPUR, PS SUTI, DIST MURSHIDABAD, 742201, WEST BENGAL. 2: IKBAL SEIKH S/O MERAJUL SEIKH A PERMENENT RESIDENT OF ISLAMPUR PO HASSANPUR PS SUTI DIST MURSHIDABAD 7842201 WEST BENGAL. PRESENT ADDRESS MALUGRAM PS SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSAM 78800 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A M BARBHUIYA (INFORMANT),MS A BEGUM(INFORMANT) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22.01.2025 Heard Mr. D. Kabir, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 174/2024 (GR Case No. 266/2024), under Sections 137(2)/103 of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Kabir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, that the accused/petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected in the alleged offence. After the alleged incident, the F.I.R. was lodged by one Abdul Halim before the Lakhipur Police Station reporting the missing of his son. Accordingly, based on the said F.I.R., 2 (two) accused persons, namely, Tashir @ Tashiruddin Seikh and Abu Taher, were brought in Police Station and were detained in connection with the said case. However, after interrogation, no incriminating evidence was found against them and they were subsequently released from the Police Station. The present petitioner No. 1, being the brother Page No.# 3/6 of said Tashiruddin, came to Silchar from Murshidabad, West Bengal in search of his brother. Thereafter, on 07.11.2024, one dead body was found near Jujang Hills and the deceased was identified as Rahul Seikh, son of informant. On the same day, the accused/petitioner No. 1 reached and stayed at Swagat Hotel and also tried to contact the police about his brother’s alleged torture in custody. When the police came to the hotel in search of his brother- Tashiruddin and Abu Taher, they assaulted the petitioner No. 1 and thereafter arrested him in connection with this case. He was detained in lockup and produced before the Court only on 09.11.2024 and since then, he has been in judicial custody for last 75 days. 5. Mr. Kabir further submitted that there was no valid ground for arrest of the present petitioners and the petitioner No. 2 is no way related with the alleged incident as he, being an employee under the petitioner No. 1, accompanied the petitioner No. 1. More so, both the petitioners were also in police remand for 5 (five) days and thus, the I.O. got ample opportunity for their custodial interrogation. However, both the accused/petitioners are ready and willing to extend their co-operation with the investigation of this case if they are granted with the privilege of bail. The accused/petitioner No. 1 is a businessman and he has no connection or relevancy with the entire incident and he was picked up by police and got arrested in connection with this case only because his brother Tashiruddin could not be located following the recovery of the dead body of the son of informant. More so, he submitted that from the grounds mentioned in the Forwarding Report also, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 assisted his brother/accused- Tashiruddin to fled away from Silchar, which at best could amount to an offence under Section 249 of BNS, 2023, corresponding to Section Page No.# 4/6 212 IPC (harboring an accused), which is bailable offence, and hence, he submitted that the arrest lacks justification and the petitioners should be granted bail. 6. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the deceased and said accused- Tashiruddin, had a connection and were involved in the business of manufacturing Bidi and there was a business rivalry between the parties. Further he submitted that from the CCTV footage and from the statement of the witnesses also, it is seen that on the day of incident, a quarrel took place between the said co-accused- Tashiruddin and the deceased- Rahul and subsequently the deceased went missing and later on his dead body was found near Jujang Hills. It is an admitted fact that the co-accused- Tashiruddin is the brother of the accused/petitioner No. 1, who is also engaged in the same business and had the business rivalry with the deceased. More so, from the statement made by the witnesses as well as from the confessional statement of the present accused/petitioner No. 1, it is evident that the present petitioner No. 1 had allegedly executed the murder of the deceased and dumped the dead body near the hilly area and the I.O. also collected sufficient materials against the present petitioners during investigation. He further submitted that the other 2 (two) co-accused persons, who were earlier interrogated by police, are yet to be nabbed in connection with this case and are very much involved in the alleged offence. The investigation is still under progress and hence, the release of the present petitioners on bail at this stage may hamper or tamper with the further investigation of this case. More so, he submitted that though there is no direct evidence, but from circumstantial evidence in the Case Diary, the further custodial interrogation of the present Page No.# 5/6 accused/petitioners may be necessary. Accordingly, he raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioners on bail at this stage. 7. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the informant, also submitted in this regard that from the grounds of arrest, it is very specific that the present accused/petitioners not only helped in fleeing the other co-accused persons, but they also confessed before the police regarding their involvement in the alleged offence and the case is still at the stage of investigation and hence, he submitted that release of the present petitioners on bail at this stage may hamper or tamper with the further investigation of this case. 8. 8. In this context, Mr. Kabir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even if for the argument sake it is submitted that the petitioners made confessional statement before the police, but the same is not admissible in the eye of law and has no evidentiary value. More so, at the relevant time of incident, both the petitioners were in West Bengal and came to Silchar, Assam only after getting the information about the arrest of the brother of petitioner No. 1- Tashiruddin and one Abu Taher by police. Further he submitted that there cannot be any complete chain of circumstantial evidence only on the basis of the statement made by the accused before the I.O. 9. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Case Diary. From the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that both the petitioners had Page No.# 6/6 business rivalry with the deceased and along with the absconded accused persons, they used to threatened the deceased and on one occasion, the absconded accused- Tashiruddin assaulted the deceased. Further, from the other available materials in the Case Diary, especially the statements of the witnesses as well as the statement of the accused persons, it is seen that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners showing their direct involvement in the alleged murder of the son of the informant. It is a fact that the confessional statement before the police during investigation has no evidentiary value, but the police had to investigate the case on the basis of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to unearth the other facts as well as the actual fact of the case during investigation. It is further seen that the other 2 (two) co-accused persons, who were earlier interrogated by police, are still absconding and thus, the further custodial detention of the present accused/petitioners may be required for the purpose of proper investigation of this case. 10. In view of above and also considering all available materials, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused/petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 11. In terms of above, this bail application stand disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant