Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010030992026 2026:GAU-AS:2943 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./488/2026 SOFIOR ROHMAN SON OF RAMJAN ALI R/O VILL- CHARUA BHAKRA JUNGLE BLOCK, P.O. CHIRAKUTA, P.S. CHAPAR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783371 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MR. W A SHEIKH,MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Bail Appln./470/2026 NAJIMUL HOQUE S/O LT BAHALUDDIN R/O VILL PASHUARKHAL PT I PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 ------------ Advocate for : MR. N J DUTTA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 25.02.2026 Heard Mr M A Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 488 of 2026 and Mr N J Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 470 of 2026. Also heard Mr K K Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam 2. Both the bail applications have been taken up together for disposal, as they have arisen out of the same FIR. Both these applications have been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting of bail to the petitioners, namely, Sofior Rohman and Najimul Hoque, who have been in judicial custody since 29.01.2026, in connection with Chapar PS Case No. 13/2026, under Sections 191(2)/191(3)/190/329(3)/118(2)/121(2)/324(4)/ 125(b) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 3. The FiR in the instant case projects that the petitioners had, along with several other people assembled during the hearing of the SR being conducted on the electoral rolls and had indulged in giving provocative speech, which led to pelting of stones, thereby causing injury to officials, and also damage to Government property. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 488 of 2026, has submitted that the petitioner is the Principal of a private educations institution Page No.# 3/4 in which, on that particular day, there was an exam going on and he was attending the examination proceedings from morning till afternoon, and, therefore, he was not present in the locality when the unlawful assembly had created chaos. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a charge sheet had been filed him in a matter relating to eviction proceedings in the area, and, therefore, the district administration had acted in vengeance against him. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 470 of 2026, has submitted that the allegations were only to the extent that he had given inflammatory speech, however, the petitioner had called for a press-meet and interacted with the members of the press and had not interacted with the members of the public to instigate any unlawful activity within the office premises. He has further submitted that all the allegations levelled against the petitioners are bailable and only two of offences, both of which, are in regard with causing grievous hurt are the only non-bailable Sections. 6. The learned counsels for the petitioners have further submitted that in the absence of notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, upon the family, friend or relative of the petitioners, the arrest and further detention of the petitioners would violate the fundamental rights under Article 221 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the continued detention deserves the interference of this Court. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has gone through the Case Diary and on a query, has submitted before this Court that there is no indication in the Case Diary that the notices under Section 47 or Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, have been served either upon the petitioners themselves or upon the family, friend or relative of the petitioners. 8. Since it is the settled position in law that violation of the provisions of Section 47 and Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, would render an arrest and detention to be illegal and Page No.# 4/4 unconstitutional, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners deserves the consideration for the privilege of bail. 9. In such circumstances, it is directed that the both the petitioners named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000/- each, with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM (M), Bilasipara, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating authority, as and when required to do so, and cooperate with the investigation. (ii) That the petitioners 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 from the trial pending against the petitioners. (iii) It is further provided that the petitioners shall not engage in any press- conferences or meet or other such activities, which may incite public to act against the officials or Government property. (ix) The investigating authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. 10. This Bail Application, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant