Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010128422025 2025:GAU-AS:11790 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : Bail Appln./570/2025 IMRAN HOSSAIN @ IMRAN HOSSEN S/O BILLAL MIA VILL-KATHALIA P.S.KATHALIA DIST.SEPAHAIJALA TRIPURA PIN-799131 VERSUS THE SATET OF ASSASM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A M AHMED Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE SATET OF ASSASM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 01.09.2025: Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2) By filing this application under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, Page No.# 2/6 Imran Hossain @ Imran Hosen, who is in custody since his arrest on 18.04.2022 in connection with Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 56/2022, under Sections 121/ 121A/120B/124A IPC read with Sections 17/18/18B/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which is being tried as Sessions Case No. 111/2023, before the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, and thus, in custody for 1,232 days as on 01.09.2025, is praying for bail. 3) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that several co-accused are on bail. It was also submitted that till date effective trial has not begun and out of 25 (twenty five) listed prosecution witnesses, only 6 (six) witnesses have been examined so far, who have not deposed anything adverse against the petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no chance of an early culmination of trial. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Supreme Court of India had deprecated the long incarceration of under-trial prisoners for a long time and moreover, in many cases, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also released under-trial prisoners considering the length of their judicial custody. 5) It has been submitted that when the petitioner was studying at Dewbondh Title Madrassa, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, he had friendship with one Sayed Ali of Bongaigaon and had visited his house, but never participated in any meetings by any member of the Ansarullah Bangla Team (hereinafter referred to as ‘ABT’ for brevity). It has also been submitted that no incriminating material has been seized from the petitioner. 6) It was submitted that the petitioner has movable and immovable properties and is ready and willing to abide by any stringent terms and Page No.# 3/6 conditions of bail. 7) The scanned copy of the relevant pages of the TCR was called for, which was received, which contains scanned copy of evidence of PW nos. 1 to 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted photocopy of certified copy of evidence of PW-7 and PW-8. 8) The learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that there was sufficient evidence available in the Trial Court Record (TCR for short) to prima facie show that the petitioner was one of “ansars” i.e. sleeper cell of a Bangladesh based terrorist group, who could be activated at a short notice and the said terrorist group could commit major terrorist acts in the State. 9) As per the provisions of section 43-D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967, in case of denying bail, a duty is cast on the Court to record its satisfaction there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie true. For that purpose the TCR has been examined with that purpose only. 10) It is too well settled that in course of deciding bail application, the Courts are not required to examine the evidence to see if it will lead to conviction. 11) The TCR reveals materials showing the nature of investigation and involvement of the petitioner in the activities of ABT. The TCR prima facie discloses materials on which the petitioner is suspected to be involved in the activities of ABT in form of providing logistic support to its members, including ones who had clandestinely and illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh. The investigation discloses that the said ABT is a jehadi Page No.# 4/6 organisation having affiliation to Al Quaida in Indian Sub-Continent and the petitioner, who hails from Agartala in the State of Tripura, has deep connections with persons in Bangladesh and is suspected to be a member of Jamatul Mujahidin Bangladesh (JMB for short) and is also involved in engaging more cadres for the cause of ABT. 12) Therefore, the Court is now required to examine if due to length of 1232 days custody will entitle the petitioner to bail. 13) It would also be relevant to quote hereinbelow the provision of Section 479 of BNSS, 2023, which is nearly para material to section 436A of the CrPC (since repealed):- 479. Maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained.- (1) Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail: Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one- third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law: Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond: Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.— In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (i), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one Page No.# 5/6 offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. (3) The Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section (i), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of such person on bail.” 14) The TCR reveals that during investigation, at one point of time, the Investigating Officer had informed the Court that as the case had international jehadi and terrorist links, more time was required to complete the investigation. The charge-sheet against six accused persons including the petitioner, bearing No. 254/22 dated 17.10.2022, was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge on 19.10.2022. Moreover, vide order dated 16.08.2023, the learned Trial Court had split up the case against an absconding accused, namely, Hamidul Islam. The TCR also reveals that the petitioner was arrested by NIA and was lodged in Central Jail and resultantly, there was some delay in securing the presence of the petitioner through production warrant, and he was produced only on 30.08.2023. 15) Therefore, it cannot be held that the accused persons did not contribute to the delay in commencement of trial. Therefore, in the light of Explanation (1) to Section 479 BNSS, 2023, the period upto 16.08.2023, has become liable to be excluded. Hence, it cannot be held there has been an inordinate delay in commencement of trial. 16) The Court is inclined record its prima facie satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie true. It is clarified that the aforesaid observation is merely a prima facie view and therefore, this observation shall not prejudice the petitioner during trial. Page No.# 6/6 17) In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), it has been held as follows:- “Where undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an under-trial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount.” 18) In the present case, the petitioner is charged of committing offence punishable, amongst others, under Sections 121/ 121A/120B/124A IPC read with Sections 17/ 18/18B/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which carries sentence for a period which may extend to life. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), as well as the provision of Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023, as the petitioner is in judicial custody for 1,232 days (nearly 3 years, 4 months, 14 days), has not become entitled to be released on bail, notwithstanding that some other co-accused might have been released on bail at this stage. 19) It is reiterated that nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the petitioner during trial. JUDGE Comparing Assistant