Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 6 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010233492022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3117/2022
LUTFOR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS
S/O ABDUL REZZAK
R/O VILL- BILASIPARA
W/NO. 14, KRISHNA NAGAR,
P.S. BILASIPARA
DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM
2: ABDUS SALAM TALUKDAR
S/O DAGU TALUKDAR
R/O VILL- KAMARDIHI PART-I
P.S. CHAPOR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
3: ABDUL HAMID
S/O LATE ABDUS SOBHAN
R/O VILL- NAYERALGA PART-III
P.S. BILASIPARA
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS S DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
06.12.2022 Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.
This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused/applicant, namely, Lutfor Rahman, Abdus Salam Talukder, and Abdul Hamid, in connection with the GR Case No. 577/2022, under Sections 120[B]/153/153[A]/153[B]/504/505/507 of the IPC and added sections 17/18/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, for granting bail.
The said case has been registered on basis of an FIR lodged by one SI Padmapani Borah on 26.10.2022. The allegation against the accused persons is that being members of PFI they were indulging anti national activities and making all out attempts to flare up the communal passions in the district. They are trying to whip the communal passions and sentiments of the religious minority community by instigating people in the name of the religion and by propagating falsehood through their channels to create a fear psychosis and also targeting various policies/schemes of the Government like CAA, NRC, D- Voter, Education Policy, Cattle Preservation Act, AFSPA, TET recruitment, Agnipath scheme, evictions of encroached Government lands etc. with a view to term these actions of the Government as a direct attack on the Muslim community and that the minority community should fight back and take revenge on the majority community and the ruling party members.
Mr. Goswami submits that the accused were arrested on 27.09.2022, and since then they are behind the bar for last 71 days. Mr. Goswami further Page No.# 3/4 submits that while effecting arrest of the accused persons, the IO has not complied with the provision of section 41/41A of the Cr.P.C. and nothing incriminating has been recovered from their possession and though they were members of PFI long back and now they have left the said organization and engaged themselves in agricultural activities and they are also serving as teacher and they will face the trial and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition.
On the other hand Mr. Gogoi by producing the case diary submits that the investigation is still going on and the IO has added section 17/18/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act on 02.11.2022, and as per their statements they are involved in PFI activities and therefore, Mr. Gogoi contended to dismiss the petition.
Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary with the assistance of Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
It appears that the accused has been shown arrested in this case on 27.09.2022 and since then, they are behind the bar since for last 71 days. Further it appears from the case diary that except the statements of the accused persons no witnesses examined by the IO have implicated them and except mobile phone and pan card no incriminating items have been recovered from their possession.
In view of above this court is of the view that though the IO has added 17/18/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, yet, the bar of section 43[D][5] will not stand in the way of enlarging the accused persons on bail as this court unable to derive its satisfaction from the materials placed on record Page No.# 4/4 and also from the case diary that there exist reasonable ground for their involvement with the offence and accusations made against them under aforesaid sections are prima facie true.
Accordingly it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, accused/applicant, namely, Lutfor Rahman, Abdus Salam Talukder, and Abdul Hamid, in connection with the GR Case No. 577/2022, under Sections 120[B]/153/153[A]/153[B]/504/505/507 of the IPC and added sections 17/18/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, shall be enlarged on bail.
In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. The case diary be returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant