Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010010872025 2025:GAU-AS:1195 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./155/2025 AHMED ALI S/O LATE HAJI RAMJAN ALI, R/O KHARMUZA, P.S. GOALPARA, DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. S S AHMED,MS R DEKA,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 04.02.2025 Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred by accused, namely, Ahmed Ali, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 28.12.2024, in connection with the Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2024, under Sections 336(3)/3(5) of the BNS read with Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Page No.# 2/3 Act and Rule 6 of The Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, for granting bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by SI(P) Pulak Kalita, on 28.12.2024. 4. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 28.12.2024, against the present accused is that he had given shelter to an illegal Bangladeshi National, namely, Shamim Ahmed, who had entered into India through Meghalaya Border without Visa and Passport and thereafter, he helped him in obtaining Indian Pan Card by forging documents. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 28.12.2024, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 37 days. Mr. Choudhury further submits that though the case has been registered under Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act and Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, yet, the said provisions are not attracted in the case of the petitioner. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the present accused is an Indian National and he is not involved in forging any documents to help the Bangladeshi National to obtain Indian Pan Card. Mr. Choudhury also submits that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this court and submits that though Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act and Rule 6 of The Passport (Entry Into India) Rules, are not attracted in the case of the petitioner, for being an Indian Citizen, yet, the IO has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused to show that he had taken active role in forging documents to obtain Indian Pan Card by the Bangladesi National and therefore, it is Page No.# 3/3 contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Indisputably, Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act and Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules are not attracted in the case of the present accused for being an Indian Citizen. Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the accused has rightly pointed this out. But, perusal of the case diary reveals that the IO has collected sufficient incriminating materials in support of the allegation of forging of document so as to enable the Bangladeshi National in obtaining Indian Pan Card. The investigation is still going on and enlarging the accused on bail at this stage will misdirect the investigation. 9. In view of above, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused. 10. Accordingly, this BA stands dismissed. 11. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant