Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010194712026 2026:GAU-AS:13767 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2639/2026 CHIRAJ ALI SON OF LATE NAZIR ALI VILLAGE- BHOLAGAON POST OFFICE- SIKARHATI POLICE STATION-PALASHBARI -2- AGE- 66 YEARS DISTRICT -KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. B RAHMAN,MS. L WANGSA,N GAUTAM,MR. T DEURI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Rahman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Page No.# 2/5 Palashbari P.S. Case No. 200/2026 registered under Sections 308(4)/308(6)/351(2)/232(1) as well as 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested and put behind the bars was lodged on 01.09.2026 by the informant namely Tahidur Rahman stating inter alia that he had invested hard earn money in Rani Bholagaon Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittee Limited and that he was entitled to receive the principal amount along with the interest upon maturity of his deposit but on his repeated request the petitioner had not paid him. He further states that in an earlier case which was registered as Palashbari PS Case No. 171/2026, he was a witness and had given his statement before the Investigating Officer of the said case but he stated that the petitioner together with other accused persons named in the present FIR had threatened him with dire consequences, if he remains as a witness in the said Police Station case. He also stated that the petitioner and their associates have threatened him that they will kill him and his family members. Thereafter, he stated that in the hope of recovering his invested money, he met the petitioner and that the petitioner instead of giving his money demanded an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from him on the ground that he had spend that money in obtaining bail in consequence of the first police case. He further stated that some unknown persons have threatened him at public places and he suspects that they were engaged by the petitioner. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present FIR was lodged only in retaliation of the bail order granted in connection with the earlier case i.e. Palashbari PS Case No. 171/2026. He further submits that two of the witnesses namely Moinuddin Ali and Rahimuddin Ali had given a joint affidavit stating inter alia that they have not given any statement in connection with the present Police Station Case i.e. Palashbari PS Case No. 200/2026. He further submits that the story narrated in the FIR is a concocted story. He further submitted that the present case is in consequence to the earlier Page No.# 3/5 case i.e. Palashbari PS Case No. 171/2026 and that instead of registering a fresh case the information given by the informant should have been considered as statement under Section 162 of the CrPC, which is Section 181 of BNSS, 2023. 4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that this Court by order date 31.07.2026 had enlarged the petitioner on pre arrest bail in connection with Palashbari PS Case No. 171/2026 on the condition that the petitioner will not influence the witnesses, neither tamper with the evidence collected with the said case but the petitioner was seen threatening the witnesses which is in violation of the Courts order. He submits on perusal of the Case Diary that independent witnesses have stated in clear terms that petitioner along with others have threatened the informant to the effect that they should withdraw their statement recorded in connection with the earlier Police Station Case and if they don’t then they will be killed along with their family. He further submits that the two witnesses, who had stated that they had not given statement with regard to the present case had actually got their statement recorded by the Police which finds place in the Case Diary. 5. Upon considerations of the submissions made by the learned Counsels, this Court finds as follows: It is seen in the FIR that the informant had stated that he requested the petitioner and his associates to repay the matured invested amount, but it was not paid and that he further stated that petitioner and others have threatened him with dire consequences, if he remained as a witness in the earlier Palashbari Police Station Case and that they threatened to kill him and his family. Thereafter he stated that he went and met the petitioner to get his money back but then the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from him. He thereafter stated that some unknown persons have threatened him in the market and that he has reasons to Page No.# 4/5 believe that those were engaged by the petitioner. The statement of the informant was recorded by the Police on 01.09.2026 in connection with the present case and in his statement, he stated about the said allegations made in the FIR but in his statement before the Magistrate recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 on 07.09.2026, he stated that he requested the bank authorities of Rani Bholagaon Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittee Limited to return his invested money but the authorities told him that they cannot return. He also stated that money of other customers were also not paid and that the other persons have formed a committee and that he also became part of the committee. He thereafter stated that when he became part of the said committee, the petitioner who was the President of the said bank along with others threatened him. He thereafter, stated that the petitioner and others have misappropriated the funds and did not return his money. In his statement, the informant did not state that he being the witness in the earlier case was threatened by the petitioner and others and that an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was asked from him. 6. With regard to the other witnesses, it is seen that they are hearsay witnesses and they have stated that threatening was given to the informant by the petitioner. 7. In view of the said discrepancies, this Court finds it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. ii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the Page No.# 5/5 permission of the concerned Court. 8. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant